Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to you and through you to the other members of the House 90 grade 8 students from Charlottetown Public School in West Hill, with their teacher, Mr. Meredith. Would the members join with me in welcoming them to the gallery, please?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, in our west gallery, there are 65 grade 7 students from St. Michael’s School in the Malton area of Mississauga North. I would ask the members to join with me in giving them a very warm welcome to our Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

INCREASE IN GAINS PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, as members are most certainly aware, the continuing impact of inflation is felt most keenly by Ontario’s senior citizens. In July, 1974, the Ontario government introduced a guaranteed annual income system (GAINS) to ensure that all pensioners received an adequate income. Since then, the government has increased its monthly GAINS payments on five occasions, which has more than compensated for general inflation.

The specific impact of high rent increases on the limited budgets of many senior citizens has been of critical concern to this government. We have made a commitment to protect Ontario’s GAINS pensioners from excessive increases in rents. We plan to fulfil this commitment in two ways, through general rent control plus further GAINS enrichments.

The comprehensive rent control programme of this government will limit rent increases to eight per cent, retroactive to July 30, 1975, thereby obviating the need for any specialized rent protection programme for pensioners. Compensation for rent increases prior to July 30 will be delivered in the form of a permanent upgrading in the GAINS payments commencing Jan. 1, 1976.

I am pleased to announce that effective Jan. 1, 1976, the government of Ontario will increase its guaranteed annual income levels to $265 per month for a single pensioner and $530 per month for a pensioner couple. As members are no doubt already aware, automatic indexing by the federal government will raise the maximum old age security and guaranteed income supplement in January to $226.12 for a single elderly individual and $431.36 for a pensioner couple. Thus, the maximum GAINS cheque in January will be $38.88 for a single pensioner and $98.64 for a pensioner couple.

This represents a GAINS increase of $2.85 per month for single pensioners and $6.28 per month for pensioner couples. We have made enrichments substantially in excess of that needed to compensate for inflation to meet commitments on rent protection to pensioners.

The government believes that GAINS recipients should be fully compensated both for current inflation and increases in shelter costs above the rent guidelines ceiling experienced immediately before July 30. Without an increase in January of the provincial GAINS payment beyond the present level, federal indexing alone would raise the GAINS guarantee automatically to $262.15.

I would like to put these changes in perspective. During the period April 1, 1975, to Jan. 1, 1976, OAS/GIS will have been indexed for inflation by 7.8 per cent, resulting in a total increase of $16.13 per month for a single individual. During the same period, the maximum GAINS payment for the single individual will have risen by $12.65 per month, from $26.33 to $38.88. This represents a 48.2 per cent increase in the GAINS cheque in a period when prices have risen by 7.8 per cent.

Despite the dire need for restraint by all sectors of the economy in these uncertain times, we cannot expect disproportionately greater sacrifices from our elderly citizens. We must endeavour to shelter them, to the best of our capacity, from the rough and necessary justice of Canada’s anti-inflation measures --

Mr. Lewis: Necessary and rough is the order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and the complementary programme of expenditure restraint undertaken by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I have two other brief statements to make.

PARKWAY BELT WEST

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On June 4, 1974, the Hon. John White made a progress report on the parkway belt west in this House.

In the report, reference was made to the establishment of two advisory committees, the Municipal Advisory Committee and the Interested Groups and Residents Advisory Committee. The first named committee (MAC) was chaired by Mr. Lou Parsons, chairman of the regional municipality of Peel, and the second was chaired by Mr. F. Warren Hurst.

The function of these committees was to work closely with the interministerial staff allocated the task of preparing the parkway belt west plan, with the object of obtaining as many views as possible, to define problems and deficiencies, to subject ideas coming from staff to critical analysis and generally to secure the best plan possible.

The committees have carried out these functions extremely well and I would take this opportunity to thank the chairmen and members publicly for the tremendous help they have been to us. This assistance has been provided at the expense of their own busy schedules and at a financial cost to the province which is extremely small related to the value received. I look forward to further association with these committees as we move through the process toward the development and adoption of the plan.

A report has been prepared by each of these committees and I am today tabling these reports. Copies are available to any member wishing them, and will be available to other interested parties following the publication of the draft development plan which, as I indicated last week, I fully expect to be available for public distribution early in the new year.

MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing at the appropriate time, an amendment to the Municipal Act, No. 2 of this session. This amendment to the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to regulate hours of operation of certain businesses other than shops. The businesses governed by this amendment include, for example, car washes, bowling alleys and body-rub parlours.

At the present, the Municipal Act authorizes municipalities to regulate the closing hours only of gas stations and shops as defined in the Act -- generally, retail stores, barber shops and beauty parlours. It was ruled in a recent court case that the power of municipalities to regulate business hours was limited to those businesses specifically mentioned in the Act. This amendment states that the power to regulate a business includes the power to regulate its hours of operation. Businesses already mentioned in the Municipal Act will continue to be governed by sections 355, 356, and 357.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

INCREASE IN GAINS PAYMENTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the provincial Treasurer, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Given the particular situation of those on fixed incomes -- the disproportionate sacrifices he talked about at the end of his statement -- how can the Treasurer pretend that an increase of $2.85, or $34.20 a year, can be seen to compensate for excessive increases in rents which occurred between April 1, 1975, and Aug. 1, 1975, to which this government committed itself, first in the Throne Speech, and then during the election campaign, specifically to provide for retroactively?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is contained in the rent control legislation, which is now nearing its final stages of passage through the House -- and which largely, in our view, obviates the necessity for something separate for that period of three months.

Mr. Lewis: Four months, I might point out -- April, May, June and July. But may I ask by way of supplementary, does the Treasurer recognize that, in the amendments which went through the rent review legislation just last week, senior citizens who are talked into or otherwise encouraged into entering an arrangement with the landlord in excess of eight per cent, must pay that eight per cent -- and that, in fact, if the costs show more than eight per cent they must pay that eight per cent; so that the Treasurer is, in effect, repudiating the Throne Speech undertaking and election promise, and also, in a very real sense, betraying them by virtue of the legislative changes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that’s very-high-blown rhetoric, and after the events of last week, not only in British Columbia but in Australia as well --

Mr. Yakabuski: All over the world.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: “All over the world,” my friend says.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- I really think the Leader of the Opposition would come down off that high horse and come back down to life.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: I suppose, since there were two Liberal victories down in the other side of the world, we ought to pursue this, but rather --

Mr. Yakabuski: More Tory than Liberal.

Mr. Nixon: -- but rather than do that, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would permit a supplementary that has something to do with the problem at hand -- rather than this high-blown political rhetoric that we get from the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will proceed with the question, thank you.

Mr. Nixon: Since the new programme is going to cost less than 10 cents a day per pensioner, I think it would be interesting to get at it from the other end of the scale. What will we be asked to vote in supplementary estimates to fund this improvement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: About $19 million, in a full year.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, working from memory, I think it was $18 million, wasn’t it, that the original programme was meant to cost? The figure $18 million sticks in my mind. I want to come back to it. Did the Treasurer try to make any estimate at all of what the pensioners, based on surveys, would have paid in average over and above the accepted percentage level between April and the end of July, 1975, in order to arrive at what the government would give them by way of a GAINS increase for 1976?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know whether Community and Social Services, or Housing, or Revenue -- each of whom might have been involved -- made specific surveys, but the fact is that we received very few complaints or comments during that period or following the statements by the government in August. I might say this, too, that after the rent control legislation has passed the House and has come into being, if there were a substantial number of excesses -- if I can put it that way -- during that period, we are going to hear about them as members, the rent review officers are going to hear about them, the Ministry of Community and Social Services will undoubtedly hear about them and the Ministry of Revenue, through GAINS, will hear about them. If some further corrective action is needed, then we can contemplate it at that time.

[2:15]

MORTGAGE INTEREST TAX CREDIT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Premier, if I may, relating to another campaign undertaking, which was the mortgage interest rate subsidy. Has he yet decided -- I know he was in constant discussion -- whether or not the federal intervention is sufficient or does he intend to take some action provincially?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet made that determination.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Will the Premier have made that determination by Thursday or Friday of this week, so that the Legislature might know whether he is going to meet the campaign commitment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t give the hon. Leader of the Opposition that undertaking. We’re still working on it.

RAILWAY GRADE SEPARATIONS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question I want to put to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, flowing from what happened in Scarborough on Friday. Has the government, through his ministry or other ministries, ever attempted to intrude itself on the transport commission to try to overcome their almost incredible lethargy when dealing with urgent grade separations and the need for approval? Will he now intervene on the various Ontario applications before them -- applications not simply for Metropolitan Toronto but the many communities that are waiting?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that in the past we have put pressure on the federal ministry to approve railway grade separations. As the member is no doubt aware, the new Railway Relocation and Crossing Act was passed in June, 1974, I believe, which set up a new procedure and new funding for grade separations. I believe there have only been two Ontario applications approved by the CRTC, or by the federal minister since that time. One was in Sudbury and one was in Cobourg and I believe in both cases our ministry was in touch with the federal government to urge approval of these because of the need for them. It is my understanding that there are some 20 applications before the CRTC now --

Mr. Stokes: The CTC.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- I’m sorry, the CTC --

Mr. Stokes: Not Pierre Juneau.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- in order to get approval. The particular one that is of great concern to us all now -- as well as all the others, I might say -- has been down in Ottawa for some period of time.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, is the minister prepared, since it’s been down in Ottawa for some time, to demand an audience with the commissioners personally to intervene, or have the Premier (Mr. Davis) intervene and join the minister, to attempt to deal with the commission in a way which will prompt them to respond to the legitimate requests, rather than waiting months upon months?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the decision is really made by the minister in Ottawa.

Mr. Lewis: The minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The CTC -- I get the letters CTC and CRTC mixed up sometimes -- but the CTC advises the minister on the approval of these grade separations. I believe, but I stand to be corrected, that the approval does come from the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa. One section of the Act is the old grade separations fund, which is an established fund that money is paid out of to assist in building new grade separations. The grade separations that cost over $1,250,000 come under a different section of the Act and the money is not paid out of that fund but is paid out of funds voted by the federal Parliament. I haven’t had a chance to do so this morning, but I intend to review this whole matter of the 20 applications that Ontario has down there and to ask the federal minister for action on them.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister indicate what responsibility lies at the provincial level for the determination of when the warning gates come down and when the bells start ringing; that sort of thing? I noticed in the Globe this morning Beddoes, in his column, had quite a list of things besides the grade separation which, of course, is the thing we all seek.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all those matters come totally under the jurisdiction of the federal authority. The province does not have any regulatory authority as to the sounding of the whistles or the speed of the trains or the timing of the signals. They are under federal legislation.

I might say that when a municipality makes an application to the federal ministry for grade separation under the new Act it is backed up by an order in council at the provincial level approving the application. The orders in council have been passed for all 15 applications made by municipalities. There are 20 applications in Ottawa now, 15 of them by municipalities and five by the province for the King’s highway system. The orders in council have been passed for all the 15. The order in council for the St. Clair-Midland one -- or actually the two that would be constructed together -- was passed on April 23, 1975.

Mr. Renwick: A supplementary question: How many level crossings are there on the GO Transit system? Is the ministry going to initiate the applications or must the particular municipalities have the initial responsibility in eliminating those crossings on the GO Transit system, which is so heavily used at the peak hours of the day?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the responsibility of the road authority to make the application. It is our ministry’s responsibility to make the application if it is on a highway. If it is on a metro road, for instance, here in Metropolitan Toronto, the metro municipality would make the application. If it’s on a borough of Scarborough road, then the borough would make the application. In each case, it is supported by an order in council at the provincial level.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, of the same minister: When the minister is discussing the crossings with officials and with the federal minister, will he try to obtain from them some date as to when approval can be expected for the various crossings or the requests for crossing separations all across the province? If he receives that information, will he make it public either by press release or letters to the members?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that would be one of my reasons for contacting Mr. Lang in this regard. It would be to urge him to make some decision on some of these 20 applications before him right now and to let us know how much money he can make available to the municipalities for carrying out this work so they can get ahead with the planning and construction of those which are of the highest priority.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: To prevent such incidents as took place in Toronto from happening in other municipalities, does the minister not think that railway relocation studies in other municipalities are extremely urgent and that the government should go ahead and approve studies in other municipalities so they aren’t confronted with something like the Toronto incident?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows certain railway relocation studies are to take place in certain municipalities within the province. Railway relocation is a very long-term and costly procedure and it is not possible to carry out these studies and relocate all the railways one might like to change immediately. I think it is important, though, that we look at these grade separation requirements and make improvements wherever possible.

REEVES MINE

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may. Harking back to the Johns-Manville mine in Reeves township, where the readings were so high and the workers were at risk, does he recall indicating during the course of the election campaign that he had only one list of readings which his ministry released? Then after the campaign I think the Minister of Health released another set of readings for the year 1973-1974. Did he indicate there was no other material available that either of them know about?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I don’t recall making any statement during the election campaign about the Reeves Mine.

Mr. Lewis: I see.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have figures. I had them here during the estimates and I was waiting for somebody to ask me. It was a report dating back to 1968, or something, of all the readings we have taken. They are available and if the member would like a copy I would be glad to send it to him.

Mr. Lewis: I am going to redirect the question to the Minister of Health, if I may. Did he know there were readings through all these years for the Reeves township mine that Johns-Manville ran?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot say I was personally aware until I became involved in it later on. Certainly, in retrospect, I wasn’t happy with the results I saw.

Mr. Lewis: If I told the minister that Johns-Manville, in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources and on the Ministry of Health’s advice, conducted readings every single month through 1971, 1972 and into 1973, showing the workers to be at an incredible personal hazard every month throughout, would he be prepared to reconsider finding those workers, wherever they may now be, and going through medical testing of a very intensive kind with them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That, again, assumes we are not willing to do that. I think we have been trying.

Mr. Lewis: I am asking the minister to initiate it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been trying very hard to carry out tests with Reeves miners and we believe we had pretty good success with them. I am certainly willing to review the success of our attempts to contact these people.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. Has he had an opportunity to read, and if so how will he respond to, a letter to him signed by the chiefs of the Grand Council of Treaty No. 3, dated Dec. 11? In the letter they say: “For five years we have fought the bias, indifference and hostility of your Minister of Natural Resources”; with reference to the mercury pollution. They further say; “The existing policy is nothing more than administration by your government of the death and degradation of our people;” and they call without qualification for the closing of the English and Wabigoon River systems to fishing of all types.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t believe I have seen that letter as yet. I am sure that my reply will indicate that I don’t believe there is any bias on the part of the Minister of Natural Resources, who has demonstrated a great sensitivity to many issues, including this one, in terms of the particular situation they refer to. Of course I will have to see the letter and consult with the ministries which have some involvement. I think it would be improper for me to comment on it until I have had an opportunity to look at it myself.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the letter is one of the strongest, in fact one of the most shocking that has ever come on my desk, is the Premier aware that fish camp operators on the polluted rivers make it a requirement of service of the Indian community as guides that they not only cook and urge the tourists to eat the fish but are required to do so themselves?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know whether this letter has been discussed before or not. I am personally not aware of it. I must confess I have never fished yet in that part of the province, although I have been threatening to do so for the last two or three years. I am not familiar with those activities or the suggestion made in that letter. Whether it is accurate or not, I can’t personally say.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t it worry the Premier about the --

Mr. Nixon: Since the Indian community is calling for a ban on fishing there and has indicated it is going to provide certain of us in this House with a supply of the contaminated fish, expecting us to eat it the way they do, will the Premier give this some urgent consideration and report to the House, perhaps in detail, on the very serious charges that are contained in this letter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I have not read the letter. There has been a very great deal of discussion about this particular problem over the past several months. Whether or not it requires further response from myself personally, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) is very aware of it, as is the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). A great deal of thought and discussion has gone into it. They have had meetings with the Indian community in that part of the province. Certain things have happened, but I really don’t want to comment until I have read the letter myself.

[2:30]

Mr. Nixon: A new question to the Premier on the same subject: I simply would ask the Premier when he is reading the letter if he would not read it from the same basis as it struck me -- that is as another mimeographed copy on the desk -- but as a matter of great urgency and seriousness in the minds of the people concerned with this particular matter; and the fact they point out that although the facts are made available to the cabinet from the Minister of Health, that the Minister of Natural Resources continues, in their view, to come up with policies far short of what is required, which they believe is the closing of that system to all fishing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk handles what appears on his desk; what appears on my desk I make a very genuine effort to read no matter what form it may take; and I shall be reading this letter.

DUTIES OF DR. FLECK

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he would like to make any further comment on the change in responsibility of Dr. Fleck in assigning him either additional or new duties as Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is this in any way a down-grading of his responsibilities as our chief anti-inflation control officer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Fleck has been and still is the secretary of cabinet and will be until the end of this month, at which time the responsibilities in that area will be assumed by Dr. Stewart. Dr. Fleck is becoming the new Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism and will continue his responsibilities in the anti-inflation area.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: The Premier then would indicate that this anti-inflation business from the standpoint of the provincial government is anything but a full-time responsibility for a senior civil servant. Would he comment further on the decision, particularly when there was some indication that Dr. Fleck was reluctant to continue his public duties in regard to the government, in assigning him to the Industry and Tourism job?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t quite understand the question or the rationale for it. Dr. Fleck, while he was responsible for the co-ordination of the anti-inflation programme of the government and its relationship with the federal people, was and still is carrying on his responsibility as the secretary of cabinet. In his new position as Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism, he will be able to discharge both functions, I think without any difficulty whatsoever.

I was delighted that Dr. Fleck decided he would stay in the public service and I think this new ministry will be a great challenge and opportunity for him. He does have very great talent and I think it’s a very natural field for him. I hope I didn’t sense in the hon. member’s question any debate as to Dr. Fleck’s capacity to be deputy minister of that particular ministry, because I happen to think he will do it extremely well.

Mr. Nixon: No response? Since the Premier is not clear on what I am asking, it is this. Did he not say to this House that he was fortunate in persuading Dr. Fleck to continue in his service only because of the grave requirement that we have competent people working in conjunction with the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa; and if that is the case, then why is he diluting Dr. Fleck’s undoubted abilities by assigning him to Industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really think this is one of the silliest questions that has been asked. I just have to remind the hon. member that at the same time as Dr. Fleck has been doing the one task he has also been secretary of cabinet, which in itself is a fairly onerous responsibility. As I say, I still really fail to understand the hon. member -- maybe he could make it somewhat more clear for me --

Mr. Nixon: I won’t bother. I can’t make it any clearer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer: Since the federal government has reserved power at the cabinet level to overturn Anti-Inflation Board decisions when they deem them not to be in the public interest, is it the intention of this government, in its negotiation of a contract with the federal government, to retain similar power in reference to contracts in relation to the public sector in this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the quick answer would be no. I think what should also be understood is that when the federal legislation does receive royal assent and becomes fully operational there are other steps or other mechanisms which are also involved -- the appointment of the administrator, the appeals tribunal and finally a reservation to the federal cabinet at the end. As I understand it the decision made last week was in the absence of the law itself, really, but was also in the absence of the administrator or the appeals tribunal being in place.

We have thought about the question -- or what underlines the question of the member -- and share, I think, some of the underlying concern which he is expressing by asking the question. We have decided that it’s more important to get on with it than continue to express that concern or perhaps do something about it. We would expect to make representations though, if necessary up the ladder, if we felt keenly enough about it, including to the federal cabinet.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary: What, in effect, the minister is saying is that instead of legally reserving the power at the cabinet level in the province, he will take the alternate route of making representations to the AIB if he thinks the matter is serious enough?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps not to the AIB but perhaps to the administrator or the appeals tribunal. I’m not sure, under the 4(4) agreement, whether or not the ultimate authority rests with the federal cabinet. It certainly does under 4(3) but I’m not sure of it under 4(4).

Mr. Shore: In view of the Treasurer’s statement some weeks ago when he stated he didn’t wish to buy a pig in a poke, referring to the federal anti-inflation position in relation to the provincial, could he now advise us whether it’s a pig in a poke or what the position of the province is on this point?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not yet seen the regulations.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: I gather the Treasurer is saying the House won’t see these regulations until we come back for a new session, perhaps relatively late in the spring, and they won’t be debated in this House?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen them and I understand now they may be available to everyone, not just to the government or to the cabinet. We have been pressing for them to be made available to us. Our latest information is that they may be available on Thursday of this week. They will be publicly available; we’re not getting any advance knowledge.

Mr. Reid: Will you live up to your commitment to have a debate here?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think, as I said before, that’s a matter for discussion with the House leader.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the minister I want to question has just left the House. I would appreciate it if you would allow me that question when he returns.

Mr. Speaker: We will hear a question from the member for Wellington South.

ESSEX PACKERS

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would he entertain discussing with the receivers or the trustees of Essex Packers whether there’s a possibility of paying at least some of the money they owe to the farmers, who are owed some $200,000, or to at least acknowledge part of that debt to them? The company is operating and I think it’s something which should be considered.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows the company is in receivership and the receivers are operating the plant. At this moment in time they are trying to refinance the total project. We’re still waiting to see what Ottawa is going to do because the federal government has given some indications, but only in the news media. We’re very much concerned about the farmers getting paid the total amount for the cattle bought or a portion of it, if at all possible. As the member knows, every few days we’ve been keeping an update on what is happening there; I would anticipate that later this week we would have more information as to exactly what’s going to happen.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: Could the minister inform the House: Does any proposal put before the receivers, or even the government or anyone, as to the continuation of the business either on a reorganized basis or its continuation as Essex Packers, include assuming the debts of the old company, which would cover obligations to the farmers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have had several inquiries regarding the plant and I think it would be unfair at this point in time to disclose the various inquiries we have had from people who might be very interested in it, depending on what happens with Essex. We have had discussions with them.

Mr. Good: I didn’t ask from whom the proposals came. Did the proposals include taking over the old debts? That is what I want to know.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all the discussions we have had regarding Essex Packers include the debt specially owed to the farmers.

LAKEHEAD OFFICIAL PLAN

Mr. Angus: A question of the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister advise this House in what way his ministry is blocking the approval of the rural amendment of the Lakehead official plan?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, my only information -- I understand the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) was asked a similar question -- is that this is a normal process in all official plans, whereby certain ministries are asked for an opinion and asked to comment before approval is given. If my ministry is holding it up, I will look into it.

PEMBROKE MARINA

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism: Given the fact that the recent announcements from the government indicate there will be no support from the government for the city of Pembroke marina, and given the fact that municipal officials in the city of Pembroke are still operating on the assumption of the promise to them that there would be support of some kind from the provincial government for that marina, I would ask on their behalf, what is the minister’s position now with respect to his commitment that there would be support from the government for that marina?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I gave no commitment to Pembroke on the marina. They asked me if I would support the suggestion and their proposal put forward to the minister under the agreement with DREE; I said yes, very clearly and distinctly, that I thought their programme was beneficial to tourism, but I said it had to be kept in line with other priorities. I think this House should appreciate the fact that some of the services that Pembroke is looking for under the DREE agreement have a higher priority in the quality of life than will the marina. It has been a decision of people within the cabinet of this province, in the programmes that have been proposed under the DREE agreement for Pembroke and that particular area of the province, that the marina does not rate as high as water and sewer services and the industrial development park they have proposed.

Mr. Conway: A brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker, am I then to assume that the latter parts of the minister’s comments represent the provincial government’s priorities in that $2 million allocation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker. We look at the proposals and the number of dollars that are available, and we as the government of the Province of Ontario are trying to rationalize them to determine where the money is best spent. Obviously, as I have already clearly indicated, we believe there are other programmes and projects in the Pembroke and Renfrew areas, that come further ahead in developing the quality of life and the services to the community than does the marina at this particular point in time.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: I believe the minister is aware that Sudbury is one of two areas in all of Canada which is not plugged into the national blood transfusion service, and I believe the minister is further aware that this is causing disruption in the surgical schedule in Sudbury. How can he continue to deny the necessary funding to ensure that Sudbury can get plugged into this service and eliminate the hardship this is causing?

Mr. Cassidy: Good question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice and answer it when I have the details.

RETIREMENT PAYMENTS BY EDUCATION BOARDS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: In view of the fact that sections 154 and 155 of the Education Act prohibit a school board from making a retirement payment in excess of either 60 per cent or 50 per cent of salary, respectively, what does his ministry intend to do about the Muskoka Board of Education, which in fact gave a retirement payment to its director of 100 per cent of salary?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to put that question on the order paper, I will table all the information on it, but I think he will find, if he checks, that this payment by the Muskoka board, as I recall, was not made under that section of the Act.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we will allow a supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister’s own officials indicated that the payment was excessive.

Mr. Speaker: Was that a question?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that it wasn’t excessive; I said that it wasn’t made under that section of the Act.

[2:45]

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Moffatt: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Since the officials of the health unit in the Northumberland area have asked the separate school board in Port Hope to close one of the schools due to excessive radiation or problems emanating from waste dumped on that particular school site from the Eldorado nuclear plant, what action is his ministry taking in that area to prevent similar circumstances from occurring in other areas where waste has apparently been dumped for a number of years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As the hon. member I’m sure knows, the dumping of the waste was permitted years ago under control of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. I’m relatively surprised, even in hindsight, that they would not have foreseen a potential problem.

Mr. Lewis: Kind of like the Reeves mine.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is there was a level above the threshold level or above the recommended level in the school. In fact there were other sites in the community where such fill was used. Our ministry staff, as far as I know, has gone around to all of the known sites right now and taken radiation levels at all of them.

While there are a few with levels above the three picocuries per litre level that we consider to be safe -- let’s not say safe, but the standard by which we judge the safe levels -- there are very few, if any, that are considered to be a risk.

I believe there is at least one commercial establishment in the community where the staff are going to make recommendations for change of the fill or some mechanical changes to improve ventilation of the air. I checked with my staff to find out if in the school, for example, better ventilation would solve the problem. They assured me it would. They also assured me the highest levels at the school were in areas, such as the gymnasium, which are used for a short duration by any one student during the school week.

The levels in the school apparently are caused by the lack of air circulation. In other words, the radon comes up through the floor or through the walls and is not ventilated quickly enough because the air isn’t moving quickly.

At the same time, outside the buildings they can scarcely determine levels above the normal background levels one would assume if there was no specific radiation source in the area. So obviously the movement of air outside the building is keeping levels down. It’s assumed the movement of air inside the building will solve any problem. There will be tests the moment better ventilation equipment is put in, to assure us the building is totally safe by all standards.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: Would the minister be prepared to do three things: One, table in the House the results of all of the tests which he has indicated are going on; two, co-operate with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) to make sure all of the areas in that immediate Port Hope area are monitored to some extent, because there have been other problems with the nuclear dump at Port Granby; and three, co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) because there has been involvement with that particular ministry within the last 10 months at the same site?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will consider the tabling. I certainly will make the information available to the member and I think we should decide at that point whether it should be public or not. I have no reason not to make the information available. I think we have to assess a number of factors before we decide that it should be public information.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can she report on the talks she held with the pulp and paper companies over the weekend and does she see any light in the continuing dispute there?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can report that the talks were held and they were congenial. I see one small glimmer of light at the moment and I’m expecting some communication from the parties today.

Mr. Reid: By way of supplementary, is the minister prepared to share that glimmer with the House or would she rather reserve it at this time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to do the former, but I would be afraid that perhaps one of the parties might accuse me of sharing confidential information. In fact what is going to happen is that the union and one company have decided that they can, they think, get together; and they’re trying to arrange that today to begin negotiations. That’s what I’m waiting to hear about.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate whether the continued high inventories, or the inventories of pulp and paper that the companies now hold, is a barrier to the companies sitting down with the unions and negotiating?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am assured that is no barrier at all.

USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Mr. Young: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: In view of the action of the state of Virginia in closing the Life Science plant which made for Allied Chemical a substance called Kepone used in ant traps and in various agricultural sprays and dusts, which now proves to be causing brain and nerve damage as well as sterility in those handling it, is Kepone manufactured, used or sold in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question, I believe, was asked almost at the beginning of the session. You might find my answer to the question then. To answer it briefly, I believe it is used in Canada in one plant. It is no longer made by Allied in the United States; I believe it’s made by a subsidiary. That subsidiary had very sloppy housekeeping methods during the manufacturing process.

It is felt that the control methods in the plant in Canada are adequate and that there’s no risk to either employees or public.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE AGED

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Social and Community Services and perhaps it can be related to the Treasurer’s statements today on the GAINS programme. Can the minister indicate to the Legislature if an agreement has been reached between his ministry and the federal Ministry of Health and Welfare as it relates to the study review of special assistance to those persons in the grey area between the ages of 60 and 65 as applies to the single person or the widow?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No.

PURCHASE OF ONTARIO LAND BY FOREIGNERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General: A month ago, my colleague, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) asked the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) if the government was planning to accept the encouragement of the federal government and the recommendations of our own select committee on economic and cultural nationalism to ban the purchase of Ontario land by foreigners; and he was told by the provincial Treasurer that it was a matter under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, who was not present at the time. So I would like to ask if the Attorney General or the government has replied to the letter from the Prime Minister of Canada offering to assist the provinces in developing this kind of legislation -- and if so, would he table the letter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I recall that the matter was brought up in the Legislature, and I honestly can’t recall whether I was present at the time.

I’m not aware of any formal reply to the Prime Minister, but I will look into the matter and get back to the hon. member, hopefully within the next 24 hours.

TRAINING OF YOUNG PEOPLE

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. In view of the pending repeal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, more specifically section 8 thereof, and the consequent reduction of juveniles in our training schools, what does the minister intend to do to provide financial assistance and alternative settings; for example group homes for those young people who are regarded, and those who will be regarded, as unmanageables, but who are no longer permitted to go to our training schools?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is under review by ministerial and interministerial committee.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just before calling the order, may I indicate, since there weren’t too many here on Friday morning at adjournment time, that the House will be in session tonight, and tomorrow night and Wednesday night. We are hoping to carry on with legislation in committee today and all day tomorrow, and we will announce sometime tomorrow the order for Wednesday.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue on Bill 20, and I would hope that we could have arrangement by agreement for stacking the votes and having one bell this evening.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed by all members of the committee that we stack as we have in the past?

Agreed.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: When we last dealt with Bill 20, we were dealing with section 4. I believe the minister has an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto:

“(10) A landlord shall, together with his application for a rent increase, or for a rent increase justification under subsection 3 or 4, file with the rent review officer a list of all the residential premises in the building or project in which the subject residential premises are situate, together with the present rent charged, and the termination or renewal date of each.

“(11) The rent review officer, prior to giving written notice of hearing to the landlord and tenant under subsection 8, may in his discretion order the landlord to file applications for settlement of rents to be charged for any or all of the remaining residential premises in the building or a project, if and when the same are relet or renewed within the current rent review period under subsection 1 or 2.

“(12) Where the rent review officer makes an order under subsection 11, the landlord shall, thereupon, apply for the settlement of rents for such units in the form prescribed by the regulations and shall give copies thereof to the respective tenants occupying such units, and the rent review officer shall thereupon fix a common date for the hearing of all such applications.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister’s amendment gets at a problem that we have seen in the bill by a route that is different from the one we had chosen. There are really two problems. One is the right of a couple of tenants to know that their applications are going in together, and the other is the need to have a uniform rental anniversary date in order that you can have a building-by-building determination of rents where that seems to be desirable.

[3:00]

That seemed to be the desire of both landlords and a number of tenants who came forward before the hearings on the bill and we are satisfied that the proposal of the minister here, if used in good faith, should probably work and we’ll therefore support it.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we see the advantage not only of speeding up the procedures of applications for review but also of bringing uniformity within buildings of the same class of accommodation. We would support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to section 4 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Cassidy: I move that clause (a) of subsection 2 of section 5 be amended by adding at the end thereof, “or in the year 1974,” and further, that clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out.

Mr. Good: The first part of that amendment is the same as an amendment we too have to clause (a) of subsection 2 of section 5, but I don’t believe we can deal with the second part of that amendment in the same amendment dealing with clause (a). I don’t think we can deal with clause (c) under the same amendment as clause (a), and I think those two things should be put forward as two amendments.

We would support the amendment under (a), which is exactly the same wording as our amendment, because we feel it is important that the rent review officer has the privilege of not only looking at the increases in the first half of 1975 but that he also be empowered and he shall look at the increases in rent in the year 1974, so that for those tenants who have not been on a yearly lease but have been on a monthly tenancy, who have had increases at six-month intervals, this consideration can be made by the rent review officers.

The bill presently does not allow the rent review officer to take into consideration any increase in rent before January, 1975. We think that is wrong. Conversely, the rent review officer can look at the lack of increases that have taken place as far back as the end of 1973. We think that is important, but we feel that should be dealt with as a separate amendment rather than coupled with clause (c).

Mr. Chairman: The Chair tends to agree with the comments made by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) and I would ask the mover if he wouldn’t segregate those two so that we could deal with them as separate entities.

Mr. Cassidy: If that’s the ruling of the Chair we will obviously accept it, Mr. Chairman. I could say that the reason for suggesting them together is that we think the two things do run together. We think it is important that in the bill the reasons that should guide the rent review officer should be spelled out and no more. There should not be other reasons that are hidden in the cabinet’s mind, or that may come up in the mind of some official of the Ministry of Housing, which can be brought in by regulation later.

That’s why we think that these two things should come together so that, on the one hand, rent increases in 1974 will be considered by the rent review officer and, on the other hand, he will not be influenced by factors which are not known to the House right now but which will be laid down by regulation. However, if you insist --

Mr. Chairman: Since we are dealing in clause by clause, it would help the Chair and I think members of the committee if you did segregate the various clauses rather than trying to incorporate two into one.

Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (a) of subsection 2 of section 5 be amended by adding at the end thereof, “or in the year 1974.”

Mr. Cassidy: If I can speak briefly to that amendment, our reasons for it are very simply that landlords are entitled to bring into the consideration any increases in costs since the last rent increase, which means that they can go back two, or in certain cases, three years. We all know in this House that some of the rent gouging in major cities began in 1974 -- I suppose some of it began even before then. But at the very least, it is important that tenants should not find themselves hit with another very big rent increase after they have had a 25 or 30 per cent increase in 1974, and that is why we think that this is important and I am glad that the Liberal Party sees that in very much the same light.

Mr. Good: It was our amendment that you took. It wasn’t on your list of amendments that was given to us. We don’t care who proposes it.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed?

Mrs. Campbell: Can we say “aye”?

Mr. Lewis: It’s a problem of language, Mr. Chairman. You have this curious railroader’s approach to the English language. You have a tremendous inclination to say “’board!” but in fact you have to say “aye” in order to get a response from us.

Mr. Chairman: Guilty.

Mr. Singer: Was he in order there? I don’t think he completed the vote.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair declares the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Campbell: I spoke in the middle of his taking the vote.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You mean he never called for the “nays”?

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 5?

Mr. Cassidy: The same clause, Mr. Chairman. We have another amendment that affects subsection (b), but since we were still on the same page, I’ll move the one related to clause (c) first.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out.

Any comments?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, very quickly, Mr. Chairman. We really don’t go along with the suggestion that other matters be allowed to be prescribed by regulation. This pops up in several places in the bill. If I can take the language of the bill right now, the bill is only in force for 20 months; while we think it should be longer there is certainly time to come back to this Legislature should it be required to extend the bill and should other matters that the rent review officers ought to consider come to the mind of the government or of its advisers at that time. But we think that it is wrong to have this kind of wide-open loophole which would be in the bill and allow regulatory power to evade or circumscribe the legislation.

If you look at clause (b) and see that already the rent review officers are to be given power to help prevent financial less to a landlord, you can see just how broad the potential power that might be available might be.

What would we do if the other matter to be prescribed by the regulation was that the landlord was to be guaranteed a rate of return on the market value of his investment which would exceed the first mortgage rate by two per cent? In other words, be guaranteed a 13 or 14 per cent rate of return on the market value of a property that might have been bought for a third of that amount a few years ago. It could lead to enormous increases in rents which would be quite justifiable according to the bill with that particular section added.

So we think that this clause (c) should very definitely come out and I hope that we have support from all parties in the House.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, over the years I have agreed at certain times that too many matters are being dealt with by regulation, and we feel that in the beginning of a new bill where there has been no experience in the past in this province as to how this is going to work, there is a need for a certain degree of flexibility in the regulations to make the matter work.

One of the major foundations on which this bill is going to work is going to be decisions of the rent review officer and how he deals with them. If there are matters that he should consider when he makes his determination that are not in the bill they can only be added through regulations. We have a couple of matters which we think are very important, which we would like to add in as additional clauses in this section and we will put those amendments forth very shortly. We are prepared to go along with allowing regulations to stipulate what other matters the rent review officer may consider in his determination. Certainly if, as in the example given by the member for Ottawa Centre, by regulations they could guarantee the landlord 14 per cent or 15 per cent return on his investment, that, in my view, is ridiculous; it would change the whole principle of the bill if regulations did that.

Mr. Cassidy: Exactly.

Mr. Good: I don’t think that would be the proper use of regulations, nor do I think that regulations would or could be used for that purpose.

We are prepared to allow this degree of flexibility in ascertaining what items the rent review officer should look at, because there could well be other important issues, as experience is developed in this field, that the rent review officer should be able to take into consideration. So we would oppose the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment on the grounds that there must be the opportunity for this bill to work properly, or for proper regulations to be prescribed to it.

I appreciate and understand the concern expressed by the member for Ottawa Centre, in that he seems to have conjured up these monsters that he has to joust with all the time. I suggest to the hon. member that I just can’t accept that the sort of thing he has described would be permitted to happen in the regulations. I think we all want to see this thing work as best it can and there is no reason in the world to expect that through the regulations something would be done to change the principle of the bill or to circumvent the intent of the hill. So I would hope that this amendment would not stand and this section be allowed to remain in order that we can prepare proper regulations and outline the responsibilities of the rent review officers.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman: I want to comment just briefly. We have, about to come forward, an amendment which is designed to take out the subclause (b) in this area and say that the principle guiding the rent review officer should be that rents should only be allowed to increase in relation to proven increases in costs. If that passed, then we would pass a definitional section as well, which the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is going to talk about in a minute. That is certainly the clear inference from section 4 of the bill, which says that if the landlord thinks his costs have gone up by more than eight per cent in relation to the rent then he can apply.

The minister says, “I will give you my assurance that we won’t take a cart and horse through the bill by means of regulations.” The problem is that you have the power to do so, and that as far as the courts are concerned, if you use your regulatory power to take a cart and horse through the bill, there is nothing in the Hansard of this debate which will stop the courts from applying the regulations. We have got your word, but you may not be the Minister of Housing for very long. This is one of the problems. I mean, apart from a change in government, the Premier (Mr. Davis) might decide to put the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine) back into the job, God forbid.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, no.

Mr. Cassidy: That would be a disaster. I see he is here listening to the debate. Another minister might come along who had a different view of rent control, in the same way that this minister had a different view of rent control than his predecessor had when he took office; when he waltzed into office and said, “Well, I am going to change it.”

[3:15]

It seems to us that this ought to be laid down in legislation. The legislative process in this House is relatively flexible and relatively quick so that if something crops up in the next six months which does require legislating, I am sure members of all parties will be happy to try to give it early and reasonably quick consideration.

I would like to ask the minister now specifically about the proposals the Liberal Party is about to bring forward. They are saying, in an amendment which we do not support, that rents charged for equivalent accommodation in a building are okay, if a landlord comes forward with a 20 per cent rent increase, they are saying that will be okay if people in the building had accepted a 20 per cent increase on equivalent accommodation before July 29. We don’t believe that should be the case but they are saying that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I get the impression we have now dashed off to another amendment which has been proposed or will be proposed by the Liberal Party. Can we come back to our --

Mr. Singer: Difficult to talk about one that isn’t before us yet.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s rather difficult.

Mr. Singer: Yes, not too much for Cassidy, though.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, what I want to ask the minister is: Would you use your regulatory powers in order to bring that kind of proposal in through the back door since it is liable not to be passed through the front door in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think it would be improper for me to comment on whether that particular proposal will be brought in in any way until such time as I have heard the amendment proposed.

Mr. Singer: That’s fairly logical.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I thought it was.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if we put our amendment, we think it’s wrong that these powers should stay with the government. It is another example of how the government is making sure that loopholes are available so that if the UDI and the other landlord groups come in to pressure the government in January, February or March it has the loopholes prepared and can do favours to these guys behind the back door.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, once again we have the narrow-minded approach to this subject that the member for Ottawa Centre has reflected through the whole debate. The hon. member immediately leaps up and suggests the government is going to use regulations --

Mr. Cassidy: Then take the subsection out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- for the sole purpose of causing concern.

Mr. Cassidy: Take it out. If you are acting in good faith, take it away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is so -- I’m acting in good faith by allowing --

Mr. Chairman: It ill behoves any member of this committee to be imputing motives to other members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The man has a narrow approach to this whole bill and I recognized that from the day we started discussing it.

I say to you this: To have the opportunity for the regulations to be altered much more quickly than can ever be done by introducing an amendment in this House -- and the hon. member knows it -- there is protection in here for the tenant as well. There is protection for the tenant under this bill by allowing regulations to be prepared and presented, should a very solid case be brought forth by tenants to indicate there should be an immediate change.

This is not a one-sided bill as you are attempting to convey to your constituency out there. It is for both parties -- the equity of the thing. Do not for one moment stand in this House and accuse me or my colleagues of trying to leave this sort of section in for the sole purpose of providing an open door for the landlords. That is not so. That may be the narrow way you approach it but it is not so.

Mr. Riddell: Who do you trust, Mike? Anybody?

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, a question of clarification of the minister, please.

Mr. Riddell: Do you trust yourself?

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Minister, it is my understanding that any regulation referring to a bill cannot in any way change the basic principle or, if I can use the words, spirit of the bill. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Sweeney: In other words, what I am trying to get at is it would not be possible to bring in, by way of regulation, a part of the bill which is not in the bill itself already. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no way you can bring in anything under regulation which would in any way change the basic principle and intent of this bill as passed by this Legislature. The regulations are an appendage to it. That’s correct.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t need to. You can drive a truck through this clause.

Mr. Sweeney: A further one: If any amendment proposed to this bill was not passed, is it possible to bring in such an amendment by way of regulation? I would understand not but I would like your clarification.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, you couldn’t. If an amendment was proposed and defeated, then certainly the intent of this Legislature has been made known and that particular position could not be brought forth in regulation; not if it had been introduced as a proposed amendment and had been defeated.

Mrs. Campbell: I have one problem with this and I would like clarification from the minister.

It is my intent, when I have the opportunity, to move the deletion of the words “cheapest and simplest” in the third line of section 5, subsection 1. If that remains in, I have this concern, that it might very well be possible, under this catch-all clause --

Mr. Chairman: I must remind the hon. member for St. George that when I called for any comments or amendments to section 5 of the bill, your colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo North, indicated that he didn’t have anything in subsection 1, nor did the member for Ottawa Centre. So, the Chair assumed that everything up to subsection 2, clause (a) was carried. That was the understanding of the Chair.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I was called out for a moment or two and was not present. However, if then “cheapest and simplest” is going to carry in this bill, then I’m afraid in those circumstances I’m not going to be able to support the position put forward by our spokesman on this bill.

One of my concerns, which I expressed right at the beginning in the debate on this bill, and certainly the other night when we were discussing the matter of the material which would be made available to the tenant, was based upon the fact that I had hoped, and said then that I would be moving, to remove those words. What is going to happen then with these regulations is that it’s quite possible -- and I’m more concerned with this aspect that I am with something which might change the very nature of the bill -- that there could be a prescription of the material to be made available under the regulations.

The difficulty is when you deal with this kind of a phrase and when we know the complexity of trying to arrive at actual information from the very complex nature of some of the operations of the large land owners in this province, it is not possible to use methods which would be either cheap or simple. On that basis, I’m concerned about leaving this in, particularly, if we’re going to be stuck with “cheapest and simplest.” On that basis, I am not prepared to proceed to support this particular clause unless there can be some clarification of those earlier words.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Oriole.

Mr. Williams: Perhaps the minister wanted to respond to the question.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My only comment to that is that this Legislature has already passed as part of the bill the requirement that material be made available to both parties, and that it be all books, records and information. I suppose the words “cheapest and simplest” grind a bit but they do not, I suggest to you, mean cheap and simple.

Mrs. Campbell: What does it mean if it doesn’t mean cheap and simple?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All we’re trying to say to the rent review officer is that this be done in the simplest possible form for both parties. It is not intended that he should be prevented from having thorough and adequate information. It is covered in the Act that he’s required to have these and present them to both parties. Certainly it’s not the intention at all that regulations should be passed that would stipulate as to what types of information or what form of information can be presented. That has been done in the Act. We require it now under the section that was passed in the Legislature.

Mrs. Campbell: That is correct but it doesn’t say all of it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, if I could just speak, amazingly, in support of the minister, I think the amendment which we introduced under subsection 9 of section 4 does cover the concern that the member for St. George was raising. It was certainly the intention of the amendment to cover that.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I have to concur with the minister’s views and those expressed, in particular, by the member for Waterloo North. I think we have to realize that in recent times there perhaps hasn’t been a piece of legislation that has put such a heavy onus on an administrative officer as designated by the legislation. And because this is a fairly new and untried area, where there is going to be a tremendous amount of input in general and direct dealings with the public by a government-appointed officer, that officer is going to be required to have as much flexibility available to him as possible to properly administer the legislation in a practical way.

I suggest that any ulterior motives that have been unfairly imputed to this catch-all section is unreasonable and unfair. I think that the most expeditious means available to us must be provided to ensure that the task of the rent review officer will be minimized as far as the difficulties he or she is bound to experience in the myriad of detail that the person is going to be confronted with.

I think all of the members of the committee, in reading the more than 215 briefs that were submitted and in hearing in excess of 70 oral deputations, were impressed and overwhelmed by the many variables that exist, whether they be regional disparities or other types of differences that exist within a given area. The variables are so great from one particular undertaking to another, that I think a great deal of latitude has to be allowed to the rent review officer in making a fair assessment of the situation. Unless he is reinforced in the powers that are given to him by way of regulations that may assist and guide the rent review officer, as I said at the outset, I think his job will be made just that much more difficult.

So I think that to take the section out would put the officer in an administrative strait-jacket that would just make his task that much more onerous. I think we are endeavouring to pass legislation that will assist in a practical way, the administration of this legislation. And by retaining that clause, I think that this will assist in that way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might perhaps assist. The hon. member for St. George was concerned about wording -- the words “cheapest and simplest” as they appear in section 5, subsection 1. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to overcome what I hope is their concern by changing those two words, and inserting the words “the most efficient and expedient” -- rather than “the cheapest and simplest.”

Mr. Renwick: Should the word be “expeditious”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The most “expeditious,” as a single word? Well, with your permission I would so move that we stroke out the words “cheapest and simplest” and --

Mr. Chairman: We already have one amendment, so if you would just withhold that until we deal with the amendment before us, we will revert to it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to speak briefly to the amendment which is before us, to delete item (c) of subsection 2 of section 5. I have difficulties both ways with the problem which is in front of us. I start from a very simple principle, and that is that in the case of the board of education and Rice, it is stated very succinctly that it is the duty of anybody who has to decide anything, to decide it fairly as between the parties after hearing both sides or all parties to the matter.

I would be happy to have item (c) of subsection 2 of section 5 read, “such other matters as the rent review officer may consider relevant,” and eliminate the question of regulations. The problem of deleting item (c) is that the rent review officer would be able to depart from the very simple principle of deciding fairly as between the parties, because he could consider items (a) and (b) as his exclusive field of concern. And that he would have to come to a decision without necessarily considering all of the factors which are relevant.

[3:30]

If, on the other hand, we leave it to regulations, he will be subject to the same restriction. There may well be matters in the multitudinous number of variations on landlord-tenant relationships available which he wouldn’t be able to decide fairly between the parties if he were subject only to an itemized list, whether the itemized list was contained in the statute or contained both in the statute and in the regulations. It would tend to be cumbersome, it would act against the expeditious settlement of the matter.

A matter, for example, which I think a rent review officer should be able to take into consideration and I would think he would take into consideration, whether or not it was in the regulations -- provided the statute provided the ambit for him to consider it relevant to his consideration -- would be such a question as whether or not there had been a deterioration in the level of the maintenance of the services the tenants might expect; or whether or not there had been a deliberate endeavour by the landlord to lower the quality of the building of which he is the landlord. It does seem to me that it is not going to be possible, with the best will in the world, to itemize by way of regulation all of the matters which should be considered.

I think the only contrary argument that I know of to the position which I’m putting forward is some sense of uniformity, because there are going to be different regions and it may well be that you want rent review officers to deal as uniformly as possible across the province. I think if I had to put that in balance against an amendment which simply said the rent review officer could consider such other matters as he may consider to be relevant for the purpose of his decision, I would be happy with it.

I’m unhappy with it being in the regulations and I’m equally unhappy about limiting the matter which he can consider simply to items (a) and (b), which would be my view of what would happen if that amendment passed.

I haven’t had an opportunity to discuss this with my colleagues. I was not aware that we were proposing this particular amendment. I would be quite happy to allow the rent review officer to use his own judgement as to the other matters which he should take into consideration. If, in the course of time, it appears possible in the light of the experience and the decisions which are made to develop an intelligible set of regulations which would be meaningful and have content and would allay any concern that regulations were going to be used to weigh the bill against tenants and in favour of landlords or vice versa, then we could look at it at that time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I find the hon. member’s comments most interesting and I’m inclined to feel that perhaps he has touched upon an answer to it, in particular when he suggested there might be some difference between regions to be concerned about. I feel that perhaps the rent review officers should be able to deal with those matters which may be exclusive to a particular region without being encumbered by specifics.

I think it goes without saying that rent review officers dealing with matters of landlord-tenant relations here in Metropolitan Toronto will find they will differ considerably from those relationships in your riding, Mr. Chairman. I’m wondering if you would permit this to stand for the moment to let us have some time to think about the wording suggested and then we would bring it back.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Cassidy: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister want to go back and tidy up “cheapest and simplest” as referred to in subsection 1 of section 5?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you have your pencil or the Clerk has a pencil handy, because I don’t have it written down.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 1 of section 5 be amended by removing the words “cheapest and simplest” as they appear in the third line so that it would read “he shall adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising before him”.

All those in favour of Mr. Rhodes’ amendment, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Good: On the matter with which we were dealing before, the minister’s consideration of taking out clause (c) and substituting for it an amendment to the effect that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) had suggested, that has considerable appeal to us and would then make unnecessary amendments which we had that we thought the rent review officer should consider. If the rent review officer were given powers to consider any matters that he thinks relevant to the situation in that particular region, it would make unnecessary our next amendment, so maybe that would be an influencing position for the minister to consider too.

Mr. Chairman: While we’re waiting for the minister and his staff to consider any change in item (c) of subsection 2, the member for Bellwoods indicated that he might have an amendment.

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to clause (b) of subsection 2, section 5.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to the amendment we were discussing.

Mr. Chairman: That’s been set aside until the minister and his staff could reach a determination. There’s not much point in discussing it now and then having the minister introduce some new thinking into it, so the committee had agreed to set that aside until the minister was prepared to deal with it.

Mr. Williams: I felt, Mr. Chairman, that if all members expressed a concern on this section, it might be helpful to the minister in preparing any additional wording; it could be better to have all of the thinking of the members before him rather than after the fact.

Mrs. Campbell: He set it clown.

Mr. McClellan: It is already set down.

Mr. Chairman: The minister asked that it be set down until such time as he was prepared to deal with it and it would seem to be the unanimous consent of the committee to do that, because if we’re going to go back to clause (c), revert to (b), and then back to (c) again, it seems like a very cumbersome way of handling it.

Mr. Williams: All right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that clause (b) of subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof: “in determining the questions arising before him on any application, the rent review officer shall base his decision on the principle that rents be permitted to increase only because of proven increases in costs” and that the following subsection be added: “(3) For the purposes of this Act, increases in cost shall be deemed to mean increases in maintenance, heating, supervision and utility costs and other appropriate operating costs as prescribed by the regulations, the reasonably amortized costs of rehabilitation where such costs do not result from work orders issued under municipal housing standards bylaws and increases in financing costs which are not avoidable” and that the remaining subsections of section 5 be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. McClellan: As I have said, we have had some discussion of this already in a previous section, so I will try to be brief. The operative phrase is “proven increase in cost” as the overriding principle for guiding the rent officer in making his determination.

I want to dwell again on the concern that we have that the legislation has to be very specific in the Act, in not allowing landlords to unload the costs of unjustified refinancing back on to their tenants. If a landlord in apartment A who has bought the building 20 years ago and has paid off the bulk of his mortgage wants to refinance at current market values and reinvest that money in expansion of his own holdings, he must not be permitted to pass the costs of his refinancing back on to the tenants of building A. It’s as simple as that. Unless the minister is prepared to accept an amendment that will specifically prevent that kind of thing from happening, it is bound to happen, and I am sure that the minister doesn’t want that to happen.

Similarly, I think the costs of rehabilitation should not be borne by the tenant when they result from a series of work orders issued under municipal housing standards bylaws. I have an apartment in my own riding, Quality Court, which you have probably read about. About 60 families living in utterly deplorable circumstances have finally forced the landlord to fix the place up. The landlord will simply retaliate against them unless there is legislative protection. He will simply retaliate against them by jacking up the rates to astronomical levels to cover the cost of the work order work. That ought not to be permissible.

I hope you will accept the amendments in the spirit in which they are offered to prevent what we see as a potentially serious abuse of the Act and to prevent too foreseeable exploitive kinds of arrangements that landlords can make against tenants.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. McClellan’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Do you want this stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments to anything else in section 5?

Mr. Good: Section 5(3)(c).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if we might deal with 5(2)(c) first.

Mr. Chairman: Let me remind the minister that there is an amendment on the floor now covering that section. It was moved by Mr. Cassidy that clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has an amendment which is in the spirit of the suggestion from the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), I would be happy to drop my proposed amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Do all those who have spoken in favour of it agree to withdrawal of the section?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure he wants to withdraw it.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to hear from the minister.

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think he would rather hear from me before he withdraws it. I am again going to express my opposition to the amendment and ask that clause (c) remain as is. I don’t believe that this essentially limits the rent review officer to just those matters, as pointed out by the hon. member for Riverdale in (a) and (b). If that was the interpretation then I think we would have the words “shall only consider,” which, of course, do not appear. If we eliminate that clause I have the concern that the rent review officers’ decisions all around the province would have to be brought in attempting to find out what the practices are and how acceptable they are.

I do feel that we can use the regulations, because then they become public knowledge, everyone knows what the rules are, and the landlords and tenants can act with some certainty in their dealings with each other, because they know that they’re not going to be subject to the particular desire or whim or mood of the particular rent review officer at any given time. They know what the rules will be, they will be outlined in the regulations and in the Act itself, and it would be much better, I feel, for both parties to know exactly what their legal rights are. I would continue my opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, that leaves us very little choice but to continue and have the vote on the amendment as we put it. I would point out, just for the benefit of the House, that the amendment moved by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) would have given a definition of costs and allowed an elaboration of that definition to be worked out by regulations. It’s not that we’re opposed to regulations per se. We are opposed, though, to the unlimited use of regulations. We wanted a limited use and not the unlimited use which is provided for in subclause (c).

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, the concern is that if the proposed amendment as put forward by the member for Riverdale was to prevail you would, in effect, be giving the rent review officer the right to establish his own set of unwritten guidelines, which he or she may apply in his or her particular region and which may have no relationship or consistency with what a rent review officer in another jurisdiction may be establishing for himself or herself as a set of guidelines. I think a degree of uniformity and consistency is required if there is going to be any credibility in the practical application of the legislation.

I suppose a case in point would be one that was raised during the committee hearings when it was suggested -- and I think the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) will recall this instance -- that perhaps a rent review officer might feel that any other matters that were relevant to the application could include the total holdings of the landlord in question. If it should be that the landlord in question was one of the large type of landlord operations that involves a conglomerate situation of maybe three or four holding companies that are all interrelated, I suppose the rent review officer could demand that the landlord bring before the hearing all of the books of the company, regardless of how many different locations and separate apartment units or rental accommodation facilities that particular landlord may have in that city or even beyond that city, so that it’s giving complete carte blanche, I suggest, to the rent review officer.

Some may be conservative in applying their own set of guidelines; others may be far too liberal -- and I use the terms in the small “c” and small “l” sense. It does concern me that without some direction to the rent review officers their task will again be made just that much more difficult, yet without the catch-all clause that lets them operate under certain prescribed regulations, they would, on the other hand, be straitjacketed. To go to the other end of the spectrum, I suggest, they have no guidance whatsoever from the regulations or the legislation. I think we’re going from one extreme to the other. I truly feel that the subclause is the moderate and appropriate position to take on the matter and, on that basis, I think it’s appropriate that the retention of that subclause should be given earnest consideration.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I have been moved by some of the statements from the member for Oriole, but it is precisely by reason of his argument that I come to a completely opposite conclusion.

One of the difficulties is the matter of the conglomerates. To me it is reasonably simple, if one is dealing with one house or one apartment building by itself, to come to some conclusions and without too much of a problem. But then there are the conglomerates -- again, I take an area such as St. James Town in my riding -- where you have, in the one case, the conventional apartment buildings and, as part of the same complex owned by the same conglomerate, you have limited-dividend housing; then, as part of all of this, you have a management contract with Ontario Housing Corp. for some of the buildings which belong to Ontario Housing. I think this is where I have great fears, if we don’t leave some discretion to the rent review officers.

I am most appreciative of the minister’s accepting my concerns under Section 5(1) and amending that particular section, but I have some great concerns in cases of this kind, which might apply only in Toronto, in North York or in some of these other areas and not anywhere else across the province.

Like the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), I have a deep concern about the idea of deleting this particular clause, and I would like to see more discretion left to the rent review officers, particularly if Toronto, North York or some of the others, for example, should gain the necessary permission to set up their own rent review officers and boards. It seems to me that we shouldn’t preclude those people from having the opportunity to meet with the special circumstances of these cases. I am aware of the fact that in many parts of Ontario there are not these conglomerate enterprises and there are not these complexities.

I am sorry that the minister found that he was unable to accept the amendment suggested by the member for Riverdale, because it seems to me that we then would have had a much more flexible bill than we have now. Without that amendment, I believe we must stay with clause (c), and yet I find a great reluctance to do it in these circumstances. If one looks at what we are doing, if one looks at clause (c) and its deletion, then I think we are very seriously restricted so far as the rent review officer is concerned. I would like to see it giving discretion to the rent review officer.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, I believe this Act and this section could be well served by excluding it; it would probably be ill-served if the vote is in favour of this amendment.

I believe section (c) will serve and will still not inhibit the discretionary aspects of the review officer. I think there is enough discretion within this section that if you include (c) you have not only got regulations covering it, you have also got a certain element of discretion. I would suggest strongly that we defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

That’s a tough one.

An hon. member: Call it again.

Mr. Chairman: Frankly, the Chair had difficulty. About a third of the committee didn’t even vote.

All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stack it?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, please.

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 2 of section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause: “(c) The rents currently charged for comparable residential premises situate in the same building or project and shall attempt to equalize them;” and that clause (c) be relettered as clause (d).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I see my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre rising quickly and I want to make this point.

Earlier in this debate this afternoon we talked about -- and, in fact, it was passed -- the review and consideration of the rents by the rent review officer going back and including rents which had been imposed in 1974. Even without that, but certainly with that fact, if someone in 1974 had received a much larger rent increase than was really proper at that time -- or early in 1975 there was a very large rent increase prior to this bill coming into being -- this would be an opportunity for the rent review officer to say at the time of any hearing, “This particular rent is too high and even without any increase being permitted it is still too high.”

The rent review officer would have the right to lower that rent to that which is the average rent for similar accommodation within that particular building so that there can be equity within the building. I think the hon. member would recognize that if he is the tenant of a two-bedroom apartment in a particular building and is paying more money than someone right across the hall for similar facilities, it is fair and equitable that those rents be established evenly.

My concern is that some of the large increases talked about over the last year or year and a half would be lowered to the average for the facility in the particular building.

[4:00]

Mr. Cassidy: I must say I would really appreciate it if, whenever we do another bill, he tries not to use the kamikaze approach to legislation. We haven’t had any of his major amendments prior to about 10 minutes before they are being introduced and it has made comment and study of them very difficult. I might just say to him that this one is no exception.

I would like to know whether this clause is intended to allow rents to be levelled to the level that prevailed on July 28 or levelled off to an average level? In other words, if you have rents on two-bedroom apartments running between $200 and $240, as is quite possible, does that mean they can be levelled up to the $240 mark or levelled off at the $220 mark?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I may have used the wrong words in my original remarks on this. What I am saying is that the rent review officer would have the power, by including this, not to grant an increase and to say to someone: “Your rent is more than adequate.” If someone in the same building is going to be getting a six per cent or five per cent or an eight per cent increase, the rent review officer can say to this particular tenant: “Your rents are too high as they are for that particular facility and there shall be no increase granted on that particular apartment.” This will empower him to do it and I would simply want to put into the legislation the authority to allow him to do that.

Mr. Lewis: By the same token, if, say, in a 20-suite building, 10 or 15 of those suites are at a level of $240 a month at the point at which renewal came up and others are about $200 a month as a result of a long-term lease, is the rent review officer empowered to say, if the lease is to be effective at the point at which the legislation takes effect, that eight per cent can be added to the $240 a month rather than the $200 a month, and that you will try to get all the suites in the building of, say, a two-bedroom or a three-bedroom kind at a given level?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, that’s not the intention of this section at all and I would hope it would not be so construed. The point I am making is -- and I would like to revise it if I can on your point -- that if someone in that building is being charged $240 or $250 a month as a result of the large increase that was imposed six months ago or a year ago, when the lease renewal comes up and an application is made for a general percentage increase, the rent review officer can look at that person’s rent and say: “No. There will be no increase allowed for this particular suite because it is in fact higher than it probably should be in keeping with the rest of the suites in the building.”

Mr. Lewis: You will recall that the London Property Management Association came before the committee and submitted a brief, in which one of the central points that worried them was that of people coming off two- and three-year leases were only allowed the eight per cent over and above the amount charged per month on the term of that lease, the eight per cent would be based on a figure in many instances below the current average monthly rental rate for comparable suites in the same building. They made the argument then before committee, and they actually came and made it to me personally, that they wanted eight per cent on top of the kind of normal rents that should apply. Now is this amendment opening that route?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No. This problem, that obviously has been brought to the attention of all of us in the House, we feel has been handled reasonably well from the point of view of both parties with the amendments that were made in section 3 which would allow the review of all of that. This is for the purpose of someone who has received a very large rent increase, one that would not be accepted as a normal increase; and where the landlord is then attempting to bring that rent up another eight per cent or six per cent, the rent review officer has the power to say there will be no increase at all on that particular suite and it will stay, even though he may grant increases on other facilities in the building.

Mr. Cassidy: If that’s the intention then we are sympathetic. We said during the course of the hearings that some form or means of homogenization of rents, or equalization of rents, was desirable, because otherwise you can have quite sharp inequities or differences between comparable accommodation.

The problem the minister still hasn’t adequately answered is this: Does it mean levelling off of rent only or does it also allow a rent review officer to take an apartment which, say, is coming out of a longish lease, and say: “Okay, I’m going to increase this up to a level of rents which prevails in the rest of the building,” which would have been insupportable if that level of rents on people who signed seven or eight months ago had had to go before the rent review process?

In other words, for the sake of argument, you have a bunch of apartments renting at $275 a month and somebody’s $200 a month apartment comes off their lease; are they allowed to be equalized up to that $275 level, despite the fact that would mean profits to the landlord that would not be justified under the rent review?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, that’s certainly not the intention. I feel that particular situation, as described by the hon. member, is adequately covered in the amendment made to section 3, which will give the landlord the right to go before the rent review officer and have the particular rents reviewed back to July 29. It can all be reviewed back, the whole thing, and at that time both the landlord and the tenant can bring in whatever their cost factors were. It is not intended by this section to allow a rent increase from $200 to $275, not at all. It would have to be proven through the review process that, in fact, it was a justifiable increase. It is not intended to work that way at all.

Mr. Renwick: You put the beneficial aspect of the amendment very well. I’d like to try to put my understanding of what the mathematical consequences of your amendment would be, as I understand it. Take any given building, and assume for the moment that all of the accommodation is identical in each of the suites in the building. I take it that what your amendment is saying is that each of those units can be increased by eight per cent. You would then aggregate the resulting rents and then redistribute it back equally among all of the units. If that is the case, then there are going to be people who are going to pay more than an eight per cent increase in their rent, while there likely will be other persons who pay somewhat less than eight per cent.

The minister, when he introduced the amendment, specifically said it was to bring it to average. You can’t bring anything to the average, whether it’s the straight average or whether it’s a medium average, without increasing someone and decreasing other persons. It seems to me the very fact that you’ve stated in your amendment that, yes, he shall equalize rents, leads inevitably to that conclusion.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it was not intended there should be an average. The purpose of this being put in the statute is simply to give the rent review officer the power that if he feels there is someone in that building who is paying a rent that is in excess of what probably should be paid, looking at what the experience in that building is and where the landlord is asking for another increase of six per cent or eight per cent or whatever it may be, the rent review officer can allow increases on some of the suites, but in the particular case of the higher rents he can say “no increase,” so that there would not be the added eight per cent on what already would be determined to be an excessive rent for that suite.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to impute motives at this time -- maybe I did before, and if I did I apologize -- but I think it’s kind of a doughnut and the hole situation. The Liberal Party’s list of amendments included a suggestion -- I’m not sure if they’re going to move it or not -- that the rent review officer be empowered to consider rent charged for equivalent accommodation in the same building which had been agreed to before July 29. In other words, if the market rent before rent control comes in was fairly high, that would be a factor in the rent review officer’s decision.

If you take the proposal that the minister has put forward here and read it without the last six words, it says that the rent review officer, in determining questions arising before him, shall consider “the rents currently charged for comparable residential premises situate in the same building or project.” It comes out to almost identically, almost exactly, the same thing the Liberal amendment suggests, which we find unacceptable.

I say that the minister is looking at situations where a rent would not be allowed to be increased because it was already too high to begin with. We are looking at situations where a rent will be pulled up to an absurdly high extent because of absurdly high rents that had been imposed on the building prior to rent control taking force in other comparable accommodation.

Perhaps the minister can see our difficulty. We can’t support this amendment the way it stands right now. Although we are not opposed to the idea of homogenization to an average level, we don’t think this particular proposal does it; and we will oppose it.

Mr. Good: I can understand to some extent what the minister is trying to accomplish; and that is more or less uniform fair rents within the same building so that some people are not going to be advantaged by the introduction of this bill, and also so others will not be disadvantaged. I think there is a point to be made for the view that the rent review officers should consider the market comparison of rent that has been charged in that building in the past, just before this legislation came into effect.

It may be too high, it may be too low; depending basically, on the market conditions and the location of the municipality, along with the particular expenses of that landlord as they relate to that building. These things are now under review with the amendments to section 3; and together with the filing of the schedules which the minister’s other amendments took care of for those buildings, this sort of thing perhaps becomes less important now that each building is going to have a schedule, more or less, filed by the landlord. The various rents and the termination of leases will all be taken into consideration. We are right back to the old problem; maybe there is virtue in not limiting the rent review officer to the matters which he should look at when he makes his determination.

I think had you left off the words, “and shall attempt to equalize them”, I would see nothing out of line with your amendment. In other words, the rent review officer can look at the existing rents in the building and the market place rents. In some areas, certainly, they are too high. In other areas, we have been shown in committee with documented auditors’ statements, they have been losing money; and this has got to be a consideration.

If they have been losing money because of market considerations, well, that’s fine. If the market is that good, there aren’t going to be any more apartments built for a while until things do come up to level. And, conversely, if the market has not existed, and people have just piled on rents and piled on more rents, we would hate to see everything get averaged up to those levels. I think that’s where we have the problem in our minds; shall attempt to equalize them and what effect could that have in the administration of this section?

I realize the rent review officer just has to look at that and make his determination. But your amendment says he not only has to look at it but he also has to attempt to equalize rents; and that’s where the problem is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think I understand the concerns of both the hon. members who have spoken. But my concern, and the reason for this amendment, is that if you have someone who is in a building, and let’s assume the rent for that particular facility has been set, as the result of an increase back a year ago or six months ago, at $275 a month, whereas some other similar units in the building may be at $250 a month; when you come with an eight per cent increase, let’s assume it’s an eight per cent increase, obviously that person who pays $275 a month is going to take a higher increase at eight per cent; eight per cent of $275 as opposed to eight per cent of $250. It’s as simple as that.

[4:15]

But then let’s reverse it a bit. If the landlord then goes in and has a review of all of the units in his particular building, and he justifies the fact that he needs an increase above even the eight per cent, then the person at the $275 is going to get hit even that much harder. All I’m saying is that if the rent review officer takes it on the basis of a building in particular and decides that a seven, eight or 10 per cent increase is justified on the majority of the building at $250, say; if he can justify a percentage increase on that to bring it up to $265, say; then, by the same token, should the rent review officer not be able to say to the tenant who is at $275: “There will be no increase in your rent; you are already paying $10 or $25 a month more than the others.”?

Mr. Good: You make it sound great if that’s the way it will work.

Mrs. Campbell: But there is nothing to guarantee it will work that way.

Mr. Shore: There is no guarantee that anything’s going to work in this bill, but the point is that it’s just another aspect that should be seriously considered. I think the minister makes a very valid point; it doesn’t say here that these things must be done, it’s another approach or consideration that should be understood and I see nothing wrong with including that in the bill.

Mr. Williams: Again, Mr. Chairman, I can’t understand why the inclusion of this clause would be considered to be offensive in any way because, as was stated by the member for London North (Mr. Shore), it’s simply an additional specific guideline that’s being made available to the rent review officer for his consideration -- and I stress “for his consideration,” and this is stated in subsection 2, which says, “the rent review officer shall consider....” Surely the comparable rent in the same project or premises has to be a basic ingredient to the overall equitable assessment of the rent that has been applied to the particular apartment that is under appeal.

It can only help, as I see it, to give the rent review officer further guidance and direction, along with the other clauses we have discussed, so I don’t see how the clause can be misinterpreted to work against an equitable disposition of the application. It can only assist the officer, I believe, in making a fair determination.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a proposal to the minister. A few minutes ago, just as we started the sitting this afternoon, there were amendments to section 4 of the bill, adding subsections 10, 11 and 12, that allowed for a building determination. I would like to suggest to the minister that he withdraw this amendment we have before us right now; or allow it to be voted on, and if it doesn’t pass, the question of equalizing rents more properly would fall under a building determination; at that point we could have an assurance that no rent determined with an effort to equalize would result in an undue profit to the landlord, because the two would go together. If the minister would like to look at that, perhaps we could continue to make progress on other clauses of the bill.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the amendment that is proposed here, but I find myself in the ludicrous position of having to agree with the member for Ottawa Centre as well --

Mr. Cassidy: It is not ludicrous; it is a good position.

Mr. Stong: It is not very often I agree with him --

Mr. Cassidy: Try it, you’ll like it.

Mr. Stong: -- but he does score a point here; simply, it is that it can be argued with force, and probably successfully by legal counsel before a rent review officer, that the equalization should be applicable to a building where the rents charged had been in excess of other buildings in the area anyway. So what would happen, in effect, is that in order to equalize a series of apartments in a given building, the rents would be raised rather than having the rents remain the same or be lowered. I think it could be argued forcefully by counsel before a rent review officer that in dealing with this particular building, the rents should be equalized in an upward trend, whereas the bill is to be fair to all and to keep it as low as possible in this situation for the next year and a half.

So, with respect to the last phrase, “and shall attempt to equalize them,” it would seem to me that the motion should pass without that particular phraseology.

Mrs. Campbell: I, too, would oppose the proposed amendment and for some of the reasons given.

There’s another problem with this because, as the minister put it to us, he spoke of two-bedroom apartments, I think, as an example. One of the things, of course, we all know is that in the same building you may have two-bedroom apartments of various sizes and various importance in the sense of the spacing and the rest of it.

I would suggest that the minister withdraw the proposed amendment or give consideration to bringing in an amendment -- and I would be prepared to think the consideration done -- if he feels he can bring in an amendment which would clarify the position which he expressed as his concern in this particular case. I don’t think there’s anyone in the opposition who wouldn’t be delighted to have something which would allow for a reduction which would cause equalization, but with the way it’s worded there is no way one could be assured that it couldn’t be equalized upwards.

The member for Oriole who, I guess, is no longer with us has said that this is simply another matter which the rent review officer can take into consideration but, of course, when one adds “and shall attempt to equalize them” that is not the case. There is a very definite direction to the rent review officer under this amendment.

I would love to see the minister bring in an amendment to achieve the purpose he wishes to achieve. I would prepare to stand this down and get on with other considerations if he feels he is in a position to bring forward an amendment to accomplish what he wishes to accomplish.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Very briefly, I believe this does accomplish what I was hoping to accomplish in that when the rents have been established by the rent review officer, it will be after a hearing, after he will have heard both parties and will have examined the necessary documentation and information that he will require. He arrives at what he says is the equitable or fair rent for those particular apartments for that next lease period.

At that time he could not conceivably, I suggest to you, in any kind of conscience whatsoever, increase the rent beyond that amount. But -- and this is what I was hoping to accomplish -- once he has established the rent which, let’s say is $260 a month and that’s what the rent will be for the year, he could refuse to give any increase to those facilities which are paying higher rents already and he will allow those rents to come back together again. It may take more than a year to do it, depending on what sort of increase is being allowed. But he would refuse any rent increase for those who were paying the higher amount.

Once he has established the rent for the building or the units in the building -- and I agree they vary -- once he has said, “It’s been proved to me as a result of a hearing that the landlord needs so many dollars per month from these units; that is fair,” he sets that figure at whatever the percentage increase may be.

Anyone who is paying above that should not be faced with the same increase. We’re simply saying this would allow the rent review officer to say, “No, there will be no increase for that higher-rent apartment” and he will allow that gap to close between the rents he has established as a result of his hearing and those at the higher amounts.

I may not have been very clear before and I may still not be very clear, but that’s the intent.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, could I put a question to the minister that might clarify this for me? Taking a building in my riding, if we look at a two-bedroom apartment, the rents are at various stages. Some are $425 a month but there are some which are still at $295 a month. One of those at least, while a two-bedroom apartment, is a small two-bedroom apartment, and the attempt is being made to equalize by bringing the $295 up to $425.

Under this particular clause, how would the rent review officer view that situation? He would say, I assume that we will not allow an increase of the $425, but what happens to the $295?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is rather difficult to go into specifics because I would be taking the place of the rent review officer at this stage. However, in looking at the $295, again I don’t know whether that is someone coming off a two- or three-year lease; I have no idea. Let’s assume that the rent review officer does his review of those particular units, holds his hearing, and says that the landlord should have an opportunity to prove that it is costing him more for the $295.

Let’s assume that he raises the rents from the $295 up to $310 and says that is a fair return, then I am saying to you that for those who are paying $425 the rent review officer by this section will be given the power to say to the landlord: “You will not receive the percentage increase for this year; your rents are too high now.” The following year he may say the same thing again. The whole effort means that this will in turn equalize, so there will be no increase to those paying the higher amounts and a fair increase charged to those who are paying the lower amounts.

It will be a fair increase that will be determined by the hearing and based upon the information presented by both the landlord and the tenant.

Mr. Shore: I just want to add that it helps set guidelines for those who may have been taking advantage of something and help correct the ones of the vast majority who may not have been. I think it is a good guideline.

Mr. Stong: Just so that the minister understands what my point of view is on this thing, if we have a given project and we have several apartments being rented at X number of dollars and it turns out that that X number of dollars is a high amount of rent anyway, compared to other projects in the same community, but they are consistent in this one project or building -- they are high, but they are consistently high -- then if we have a series of apartments for which the landlord wants an increase, then it can be argued very effectively, in view of the last phrase of this section, that that landlord is entitled to and ought to have an increase of rent for those lower rental apartments up to the level of the apartments which he is overcharging for in the first place.

That is how that can be argued effectively on behalf of landlords, and that’s my point.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the greatest of respect, I don’t think that is correct in that we are not talking about a building that is located on one side of town and a building that is located on the other. We are talking about individual buildings. The landlord is going to have to justify to the rent review officer on each of those buildings as to what his rent increase should or should not be. I don’t think this is a question of attempting to increase the rents in one building by a sufficient percentage to bring it up to the level of a building on the other side of town or the other side of your riding. It just doesn’t apply in the bill.

[4:30]

Mr. Renwick: Why did you only select this one to put in as the consideration, rather than dealing with it by the regulatory power that you upheld with such vigour a little while ago?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I felt in this particular case the rent review officer’s responsibility -- yes, responsibility -- was to seize the opportunity and to allow everyone to know that within the Act the rent review officer does have the right to refuse any increase on certain units within a specific building.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Rhodes’ amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall the amendment be stacked?

Mr. Cassidy: Stack it, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Good: On section 5(3), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 5(3). The hon. member for Waterloo North.

I think the minister has an amendment to 5(3).

Mr. Good: Does he have one before this? This is clause (c).

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 5, subsection 3 be amended by striking out “written notice of his decision” in the 17th line and inserting in lieu thereof, “copy of his order.”

Does anyone wish to speak to the minister’s amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. I just want to ask a question. How does the amendment the minister has just introduced to the 17th line of subsection 3 of section 5 relate to the provisions of subsection 4 of section 5? Am I correct in saying that the decision of the rent review officer must be given in writing but that his reasons need not be given in writing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We want to change it, as we have earlier in the bill, to make it so that rather than a written notice you get a copy of a particular order.

Mr. Renwick: Without reasons?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry?

Mr. Renwick: Is anybody entitled to written reasons?

Perhaps I wasn’t too clear about it. I understand that you want the rent review officer to give a copy of his order to all of the parties and that synonymous with some other change you made earlier in the bill. How does that relate to the following subsection 4 which requires reasons to be given by the rent review officer? Is there any obligation for the rent review officer to include in his order, a copy of which goes to each of the parties, the reasons for his decision?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would have to say there would be no reasons going with the copy of the order but that the rent review officer -- I don’t know. Just reading it, I suddenly see it says, “shall” give the reasons for his decision.

Mr. Renwick: It doesn’t say they need to be in writing and it doesn’t say they need to be included in the order. The reasons are of no use unless they’re in writing and included in the order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know.

Mr. Cassidy: I think, in sub 4, maybe this matter can be resolved. The reasons are going to be relatively brief in most cases. We could amend sub 4 to say that when the rent review officer gives his reasons they will be appended to the order. Would that be reasonable?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the minister might ask his people to consider the wording to add at the end of subsection 4, immediately beneath: “The rent review officer shall give reasons for any decision made by him in proceedings before him” -- “and shall append these reasons to his order;” or whatever the legal phrase may happen to be. I don’t think it’s an administrative problem.

Mr. Renwick: I think “append” is a terrific legal word.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Stack that one. I’ll get some wording for it.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed we’ll stand this amendment down for the time being?

Mr. Cassidy: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Good: Under section 5, subsection 3, clause (c) the rent review officer may, “order the landlord to repay to the tenant rent paid in excess of the amount;” or order “that such excess be set-off by way of abatement of rent.” I think we are back to the same problem that arose earlier in the bill, where if the landlord, after being given the order to repay the rent to the tenant, refuses to act, we feel that then there should be included with the order the same set of rules that were set out earlier in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Good moves that clause (c) of subsection 3 of section 5 be amended by inserting after “tenant” in the first line, “within five clear days of the date of the order;” and in the third line the words “that such excess be set-off by way of abatement of rent,” be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof: “Where the landlord fails to comply with the order, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.”

Mr. Good: This is the same amendment that was put in earlier. We feel that would take care of the situation so that if there is delinquency on the part of the landlord in settling, the tenant then could take action under an order and not of his own volition.

Mr. Chairman: Are we just dealing with this first one at this point? Does the hon. minister wish to comment? Or the hon. member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, perhaps the minister wants to comment, because I would be interested in his reaction.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask and that is, in that portion of the amendment that reads “where the landlord fails to comply with the order” -- the latter part of the amendment -- as I read it, it says “the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent and so continue to do until the order shall have been satisfied.” If he takes it off the first month, that is it.

Mr. Cassidy: It might be more than one month’s rent.

Mr. Good: No, in this case it couldn’t be. When we moved that amendment earlier in the bill it conceivably could have been more than one month’s rent in the refund of increase but I think the minister is right and it would not now be more than one month’s rent. I could delete “and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.” I think that could be taken from the amendment if the minister is willing.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment?

Mr. Cassidy: Just to show the flexibility with which we approach this bill, the plan of this was proposed previously. We suggested that tenants should be able to deduct rebates which the landlords haven’t repaid to them without having to go to the rent review officer at all. We were sorry that that procedure, which would have been administratively much simpler, was rejected by the other two parties.

In this particular case the matter, by definition, will have been before the rent review officer anyway and this is simply a means of enforcement. It makes more sense this way than what is proposed by the government and we would support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Does the hon. minister wish to comment further?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I see that this particular section, as I read it, is very similar to the one we had earlier in the bill and I see nothing wrong with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Good carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Good: You have deducted those words from the end?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we made the change you requested.

Mr. Good: Thank you.

I have another amendment to the same section and this amendment was attached to the one I sent up previously. We see no provision under section 5 for the rent review officer to order a reduction in the actual rent being charged prior to that. It says he can order the landlord to reduce the amount of the rent increase but we don’t see any provision for the rent review officer to order a reduction in the rent charged previously. For that reason we would like to move that clause (e) of subsection 3 of section 5 should be added.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Good moves that the following clause be added to subsection 3 of section 5:

“(e) Order the landlord to reduce the amount of the rent payable from the day of the order to such lesser amount as he may specify.”

Mr. Good: In that regard we feel the rent review officer would only be reducing the amount of rent from the day of the order and not retroactively. If, as we read it, this is an omission in the bill, we think this could be a very important amendment to the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre wish to comment?

Mr. Cassidy: I am glad Mr. Good gave that explanation because I had thought the proposal was redundant until he explained the difference between the existing sub-clause (b) and the proposed sub-clause (e). It makes sense and we will support it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on Mr. Good’s amendment?

Shall Mr. Good’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on any other portion of the bill and if so what sections?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if I might come back now to section 5 subsection 3 -- the one I had asked to have set down for the moment?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 3 of section 5 be amended by striking out “written notice of his decision” in the 17th line and inserting in lieu thereof “a copy of his order together with written reason for his decision”; and that subsection 4 be deleted.

[4:45]

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: On subsection 5, Mr. Chairman, I just want to address a question to the minister.

As I understand it, if a landlord or a tenant finds that the other person in the relationship is not complying with an order of a rent review officer, then they can ask the rent review officer to file a copy in the court, and at that point it has the force of an order of the court. There is a potential problem here, particularly for tenants who will be less used to that procedure.

Could the minister explain why it was not decided that the orders of the rent review officer should have the force of an order of the court, or should automatically be deposited with the court? Why didn’t you automatically give them that force, rather than only giving them that force if either party requests it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the main reason is that we don’t want to be placing these rent review officers in too judicial a position. We would like to have them remain as rent review officers, and not having hard and fast orders coming down from them and everybody jumping to comply. We hope the people will comply without having to have this sort of a threat over them but if somebody does come to them, then they do have the authority to do so.

I just don’t feel that I want rent review officers, nor do I think it’s necessary for them to be placed in the position that they are doing so much that is hard and fast, but to keep them within that relatively review and non-judicial position as much as possible.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to see this work for a while and then, if it needs review, possibly it could be amended. The member for Riverdale assures me that some of the arguments that the minister makes are reasonable ones, and I have some sympathy for them myself. There is a danger that tenants in particular will suffer from non-enforcement or non-compliance. As the minister knows, this was a big problem with rent control in British Columbia in its first year or two; as many as a third of landlords did not comply, and tenants didn’t know how to enforce the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 5 carry?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments on any other section of the bill? Does the minister have any further amendments?

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out “gives notice of” in the first and second lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “renders.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment, it is a technical thing which doesn’t really matter particularly. But the minister had an amendment to propose around about this area to require a landlord to give a tenant justification for an increase in the form prescribed by the regulations, and he appears to have neglected that particular amendment. We will move it if the minister doesn’t want to, but I would like to know what his intentions are. It is number 12 on my list of the minister’s amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could deal with this amendment to section 6 before the committee at this time -- or does the minister wish to respond first?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you wish to take the vote on 6, we can dispose of that one -- it’s a very minor one -- and then come back to the one the hon. member is referring to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct. I am sorry; I overlooked it.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following as section 5: “At the time of the giving of a notice of rent increase under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord seeking the increase shall at the same time supply the tenant receiving the same with a notice of justification for the increase in the form prescribed by the regulations and that the remaining section of the bill be renumbered accordingly.”

Mr. Cassidy: We had proposed something very similar when we made public our suggested changes to the bill. We’re glad about this and we welcome this proposal from the minister. I just wanted to put on the record our hope that when the government gets to preparing the form prescribed by the regulations under this particular section that it ensures it’s a fairly full and comprehensive kind of justification. I don’t mean that the last penny’s increase in the price of toilet paper in the lavatory near the front entrance should be included, but that there should be a sufficient indication of the major categories of costs so that the tenant can look at that and look at what’s being done in the building in his experience and have some idea of how the two relate.

This should be a fairly comprehensive justification and not just a little thing that says: “In the year 1974 the costs in the building were so much, in the year 1975 they amounted to so much; the increase is so much and that’s why I’m increasing your rent.” I hope it’s in that spirit this particular amendment is offered. If it is going to be a good justification, then it’s a fundamental change in landlord-tenant relationships which, we suggest, would be very healthy and will have positive results for a long time to come.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to section 7 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out, “and such discontinuance results in a substantial reduction of the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the residential premises” in the third, fourth and fifth lines.

Mr. McClellan: Our sense is that the clause that we’re asking to be struck puts an unnecessary onus on the tenant not to demonstrate that a service has been cut but to focus the discussion around the question of whether it reduces his use and enjoyment or not. Surely if a service is cut the service is cut, and that, simply, ought to be the extent of the discussion. Our argument is simply that it puts an unfair onus on the tenant dealing with the wrong thing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As to maintaining that particular sentence in section 7, I looked at that with a view not unlike what the hon. member is suggesting; but I also would like to avoid the situation where we’re going to have people rushing off to the rent review officer for a very minor reason, for example, if the light bulb goes from a 60 watt to a 40 watt sort of thing.

Mr. Renwick: I would consider that a major change.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose there have been occasions when the member wished he could have had an extra 20 candlepower getting home.

Mr. Renwick: Getting up from the underground garage with a 20-watt bulb.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh yes; I’m not underplaying that, I perhaps picked a bad example. I would like to stay away from the frivolous approach in the thing, to assure it is something of substantial nature, that would in fact reflect in a rent decrease and a decrease in service that is substantial as opposed to something that is of a minor nature. That’s the reason I would like to see it stay in.

If someone starts to take away a service, close down the swimming pool, not allow people to use the laundry facilities or try to charge for something like that or take off the doorman, I think that is a substantial reduction in service and a subject to be considered by the rent review officer.

Mr. McClellan: If I could just reply, I simply don’t accept the assumption that there is a great mass of frivolous tenants out there waiting to inundate your administration with imbecilic requests. Frankly I think it’s an insulting and specious kind of assumption to make. So we will vote for our own amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose we could stand here and exchange insults all day, but the truth of the matter is I am not suggesting that there is a great mass of tenants out there who will do this, just as there is not a great mass of landlords who are going to beat these poor people into the ground. I am suggesting that there are those cases where you will, in fact, have people do these things.

On both sides of the coin, I am prepared to accept that you are going to have differences of opinion. I think that there are, and I think you know it, that there are people who will, in fact, go in and say, “I think we should have a change.” If you don’t think there are, that there is no one who would do that, then what’s the difference if you leave it in? It takes care of the matter.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned that the changing of a light bulb in the underground garage could be a substantial kind of a thing for, say, a 21-year-old woman who has got to leave her car there and comes in from a shift of nursing at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. The removal of a handrail worth $5 or $10 could be a substantial kind of a thing for somebody who is disabled. The removal of a simple, 50-cent block of wood, which provides a ramp for someone who was in a wheelchair, could be substantial as well.

Everybody’s definition of “substantial” depends on his own individual circumstances. It seems to me that if people are harassing the process, the rent review officer will very quickly throw out these so-called frivolous applications. The three I have mentioned do not involve anything substantial in monetary terms, but they sure as heck involve a great deal that is substantial in terms of the individual tenants. People should not be deterred by having these rather portentous words left in the Act.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think there is some importance to this particular amendment and I would ask the minister to take another look at it. I think he is putting wrong emphasis on the situation in his argument. My own experience has been that tenants are inclined to take quite a bit. At least in the problems I have had, they have gone through quite a hassle before I really started to get them blowing up.

When I think of services that you could legitimately make a case for, I can think of entire floors where the lights were out and we have spent days trying to get lights on again -- not a question of changing a 40- or 60-watt bulb. I can think of a swimming pool that has not been closed down, but was certainly made inoperable by not being kept clean and we have had to go to the health authorities on it. I can think of really poor elevator service -- days at a time with elevators not operating. I can think of many things I have run into when I have gone out into the buildings and talked to the people, problems that really are reductions in service.

I don’t have a building that I know of in my particular riding that has a doorman. Whether or not they have a doorman has never entered into our consideration. But some of these other things are serious considerations, and I think this amendment is worth taking a look at.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to point out that when I say “a substantial reduction in service,” we are relating it back to how it will affect the amount of rent that should be charged for that building. I think the hon. member for Hamilton East is correct: If the pool is not kept clean, it denies that particular service, but it is in fact a health matter and the health people should quite properly go in and have it cleaned. But would that really be, in all sincerity, a just reason for the rent review officer to say he is going to reduce the rent by whatever it may be, because that pool --

Mr. Mackenzie: If it was continuous.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If it was continuous over a long period of time, I think that’s correct.

Mr. Mackenzie: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But I think you have to relate it back to this, that you and I pay our municipal taxes and there are many times when I am not satisfied with the way the snow is ploughed from in front of my driveway, but I don’t rush down to ask someone to lower my assessment as a result of it. It’s an occurrence that I don’t appreciate, but it does occur. If it continues, then I do in fact go and ask for a reduction in my assessment.

I think the same thing applies here. If there is something that is really of a substantial nature -- and I agree with the member for Ottawa Centre that the definition of “substantial” will be in the mind of the rent review officer, who will determine -- there is nothing to prevent the tenants from going and complaining about some of the things you’ve mentioned.

I wish I had never mentioned that little light bulb, but I think that is a good case where, if that does happen, it is worthwhile bringing up if there is a safety factor in the building. If they remove a ramp for a wheelchair for an invalid person, it is a very reasonable request that that should be replaced or maintained properly. But I think we’re looking at something greater than that, where it would actually reflect into a substantial decrease in rent or a decrease in service to be reflected in the rents.

[5:00]

Mr. Renwick: I would like to put a specific case to the minister so I can get some idea of the ambit of what he’s talking about, because I think the amendment put forward by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) should be accepted by the ministry.

Most leases do not have a specific reference to the provision by the landlord of a self-service laundry room. We have a specific instance in our caucus where the landlord has discontinued -- whether he did it because this bill was before the assembly or not, I do not know -- he has discontinued the provision of those self-service washing and drying machines in the particular building. That obviously means that the person has to go outside in order to find a similar facility; presumably the cost outside would be identical to him, apart from the fact that he has to transport his laundry back and forth from the building where he had the convenience of using it in the building. Now, in the case where the amenity is not part of the tenancy agreement that you can point to, would you consider the discontinuance of that kind of a facility as a substantial reduction in the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the residential premises?

Another example which I’ve had a number of calls about, particularly in one building adjacent to my riding, is where there is nothing in the tenancy agreement which indicates there is any obligation on the landlord to redecorate. The custom of the landlord has been to redecorate. The landlord has now indicated that when this bill goes through, he is not going to redecorate; that in all likelihood, if you want to have it redecorated you’ll have to redecorate it yourself, if you can get his permission to do so. Is that the kind of amenity which the discontinuance of which would result in a right by the tenant to claim a substantial reduction in his use and enjoyment of the premises?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would have to say yes in both of those cases, because that particular section of the Act does refer to the landlord’s discontinuance of a service, privilege, accommodation or thing. I’m sure the items mentioned by the member fall within the service and privilege that has been established and a tenant has a right to expect for the enjoyment and use of that particular facility. I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to the hon. member, in his amendment, simply to remove the word “substantial,” rather than take out the rest of it. That seems to be the bone of contention.

Mr. McClellan: I would be agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that the word “substantial” be struck from Mr. McClellan’s amendment? Agreed? Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I thought the minister’s suggestion was that the word “substantial” be withdrawn from the section. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I had asked the hon. member, on his amendment, which is what we are speaking to, if he would be satisfied if we simply removed the word “substantial” from the section, rather than the whole line, and I gathered he agreed.

Mr. McClellan: I withdrew my amendment in favour of the minister’s amendment to strike “substantial.”

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 7 be amended by striking out the word “substantial” in the fourth line.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other sections of the bill and if so, to which section? The minister has an amendment to which section?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Section 11.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 11?

Section 7, as amended, and section 8, agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. McClellan: Section 9, clause (a), is identical.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that the word “substantial” be stricken from section 9, clause (a), in the third line.

Is there any comment to the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments prior to section 11?

Mr. McClellan: I have one more amendment to section 9.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that clause (d) of section 9, renumbered as 12, be amended by adding at the end thereof “or a restoration of a discontinued service, privilege, accommodation or thing.”

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I think that’s self-evident. We’re simply asking that the review officer have the power to order the restoration of the eliminated services.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comment on Mr. McClellan’s amendment? Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Cassidy: Could we hear from the minister?

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m a little lost as to where it fits in the bill, quite frankly. The “renumbered as 12” has thrown me.

Mr. Good: No, section 9, subsection 9(d).

Mr. Renwick: The renumbering is just an alternative.

Mrs. Campbell: Clause (d), “a reduction in the rent or a restoration of the -- ”

Mr. McClellan: If you would just strike out “renumbered as 12.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is what threw me. Mr. Chairman, I would be opposed to the amendment for one very basic reason. There may be a case where the landlord could not restore and the only choice would be the reduction in rent.

Mr. McClellan: It’s an option.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We could leave it as it is and if there’s any argument let it go to the courts.

Mr. Renwick: But it’s optional.

Mr. Cassidy: It says, “and may order”; not “shall order,” “may order.”

Mr. Renwick: If it were feasible to restore it that would be better than reducing the rent.

Mr. McClellan: I’d like to point out to the minister, it is at the discretion of the review officer and it is optional. I would expect that his contingency would be taken care of.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I go back, though, to something said much earlier about the rent review officers and how their specific job is going to be difficult if they don’t have some flexibility. I’m a little concerned about the rent review officer coming down and simply saying, “that service shall be restored.” He’s made his ruling. What happens? The rent review officer has said, “you shall restore that service.” It may be, economically, just not feasible to restore that particular service and the landlord would much prefer to simply reduce the rent rather than bring the service back. I don’t see why we would want to alter the bill to that extent.

It says, “or a restoration of a discontinued service, privilege, accommodation or thing.” You’re really making it awfully broad to do that. I think the rent reduction is equitable as long as they’re getting something for it.

Mr. McClellan: Let me put it to you that that doesn’t begin to deal with the problem of the light bulb in the garage; it doesn’t begin to deal with the problem of decorating which has been traditional in a building and is now eliminated; it doesn’t begin to deal with the question of safety facilities that are removed or of maintenance that deteriorates. Unless you have some way of restoring discontinued services, frankly, it doesn’t matter at all whether you reduce the rent. The inconvenience to tenants is still major and can’t really be recouped through rent reduction. I think the illustrations that I cited make that clear. It doesn’t matter to me if my rent goes down or isn’t raised if I can’t grope my way out of the garage in the basement.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me that in the event of an essential service there ought to be some provision in the Act where the landlord should be required to remedy it. However, when it is not an essential service, there ought to be no requirement in the Act for the landlord to replace or restore, so that perhaps in some instances the landlord would be quite satisfied to accept a reduction in rent because the service has been reduced --

Mr. McClellan: We are talking about tenants.

Mr. Stong: The tenant, sorry, may be willing to accept a reduction in rent. However, perhaps it should be written into this section that it be at the option of the landlord to restore the facility or accept the reduction.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Much of what is being said here is desirable and perhaps the sort of thing that should be incorporated into some legislation, but may I remind the hon. members that we are dealing with the review of rents. This is not the Landlord and Tenant Act, it is not the buildings standards bylaw of the city of Toronto or the borough of Etobicoke or the city of Windsor. It is a rent review Act.

We are saying in this Act that these various services and privileges and accommodations, if they are reduced substantially -- we even took out the word “substantial” for you -- if they are reduced, the rent review officer at the hearing can say, “Yes, in fact this is a reduction of the service and it comparably should be dealt with in a reduction of rent if it is not going to be restored.” If there are things such as a small light bulb that is a safety hazard, by all means have them covered, but not in this bill.

This is a rent review bill, not a building standards Act and not the Landlord and Tenant Act. May I suggest that those amendments perhaps should best be going in some other piece of legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Years ago, when I first moved back to Canada after a long time in England, I lived in an upper duplex in Montreal West, as it happened, and one of the reasons we took that place was because there was a back garden to which we could have access for our children to play in, they being infants at that time. If that garden had been taken away from us, if the landlord had decided we could no longer have access to it, then the upper duplex would have been completely useless. It would have become a prison for my wife with a couple of small children, because she could not have allowed the children out into a safe play area where she could supervise them.

That is the kind of thing, and other examples have been given, where no amount of reduction in rent can compensate for the withdrawal of that particular service which was a service that went with the property at the time it was rented. The monetary value of taking the access to the garden away might be $10 or $15 a month -- 10 or 15 per cent of the rent, I don’t know. It would be modest in relation to the overall rent, but the value to the particular kind of user of that property could be far greater.

If the minister is hanging his hat on the economic problems that might face the landlord who is ordered to restore a service, then the minister should surely be aware that the landlord can appeal through the appeal tribunal. He is quite justified in going in there and saying, “They want me to heat the building to 78 deg. because there is a little old lady in there who cannot survive unless the building is very hot. With the price of fuel oil these days I simply can’t afford to do it. Everybody else in the building keeps the windows open because they can’t abide the heat.” That’s the kind of example the minister might put, sort of in opposition. The tribunal then could rightly say, “It’s not reasonable that one out of 200 tenants should dictate the temperature the whole building is heated at, and therefore we’re going to have to say to this lady that your rent will go down but the heat is going to go down as well. The order of the rent review officer was not realistic because it ordered the landlord to heat all of the building to 78 degrees to accommodate one tenant.”

[5:15]

There is the appeal process to protect the landlord against an order by the rent review officer which is unreasonable on economic grounds. There is the option available to the rent review officer that he is not bound to make an order if it will be unreasonable on economic grounds. But once you choose to bring reductions in services, privileges, accommodation or things -- that’s a very wide broad word, thing -- into the ambit of the Act it seems to me, and I think it’s fair to say to my party as well, that we cannot understand why you insist on translating the redress into a purely monetary matter. There are many cases when there are non-monetary solutions -- put a 100-watt bulb into that parking area; put a wheelchair ramp in or something like that -- a non-monetary solution might be a much more reasonable kind of answer to the particular problem the tenant is complaining of. I don’t see why the minister can’t accept this.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, this is a rent review bill; Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises is the title. The hon. member, and obviously the rest of his party, is attempting to get into this bill things which really don’t belong here. We are talking about the economics. The reason this section was put in here was because we didn’t want to allow the landlord to say suddenly, “Because I’m only allowed to increase the rent by six, seven or eight per cent I can take away these services and I can charge for things which before I was letting the tenants use as a part of the overall rental. Now, I’m going to charge them to use the swimming pool. I’m going to charge them to use the laundry room, aside from the coin that goes into the machine. I’ll charge them to use it. I’ll charge them for a locker. I’ll charge extra for this and for that.”

We said, “No. We want to protect the tenants in the Act. The purpose is to maintain some semblance of order in rental accommodation and not have rents going too high. We’ll put this in the Act.”

Don’t grab hold of it now and attempt to make it more than it really is. It is nothing more than economics. Something is being provided by the landlord as part of the service for which the tenant has paid rent. If that’s taken away from the tenant, then by all means the rent should be reduced.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re using an economic solution for non-economic problems.

Mr. Shore: This is an economic bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You talk about the garden in the backyard of a duplex. I understand that. I’ve lived in duplexes on top floors, third floors and everything else. I can give you another situation. What sort of an economic value, if any, do you place on the fact that you can look out your window across to a beautiful view but you don’t own the land over there. Someone comes along and builds a building in front of it and blocks off your view. Do you then run to your landlord and say, “I just lost a view from my front window which was of great benefit to me and my family so I want you to lower the rent.”

Mr. Cassidy: That is not under his control.

Mr. Good: You’re putting ideas into the tenant’s heads.

Mr. Shore: You shouldn’t have said that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There’s a limit to what you can do.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I have the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). We’ll take them in that order and then the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak against this particular amendment for some of the reasons which have already been put forward. In particular, I see it as tending to make something more out of the rent review officer or the tribunal at the higher level than was ever contemplated by this legislation.

The rent review officer, as I understand his function, was never intended to set up a landlord and tenant court. He does not have the authority to terminate tenancies. He does not, generally, have the authority to order people to do anything other than amend rents and to try to ensure that rent increases are within the range of fairness as set out in the legislation.

I think, in view of the fact that courts generally are very reluctant to get into the area of ordering people to do specific acts, it would be a very dangerous precedent for us to set up, under this legislation, a non-judicial body that is empowered to start ordering people to perform certain acts. As a matter of principle I think such provisions must only be incorporated in legislation which is going to be administered by the courts of this province, and not by a quasi-judicial body such as a rent review procedure tribunal, which may in fact have none of the usual controls that exist in the courtrooms with regard to evidence and the weight and onus that applies in the courts of this province. I think that it would extend the authority of the rent review officer into an area that was never contemplated by this legislation in the first instance.

What is being suggested by the hon. members may well be worthy of consideration for inclusion at some points very specifically under the landlord and tenant legislation. This is administered by the courts of this province and not by someone who may, in many instances, be trained as an accountant, or have some background which is really quite different from the background we normally expect in the training of our judges who would normally make such orders and make determinations and applications for such orders.

So I would have to encourage the hon. members to reconsider and look at the implications of what it is they are really doing by including such authority in a non-judicial body.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the last speaker and there is a great deal of logic in what he has to say. I have reviewed this matter and viewed it in the light of the fact that the rent review officer is, in fact, going to determine the value of the reduction of the service. My concern I think is a little different from some of those expressed, and that is, in the larger projects in my riding the real concern is that often the reduction of service is a reduction of protection in underground parking garages, and we have experienced muggings and other offences in those areas.

I suppose that what one could hope would be that under this particular piece of legislation the rent review officer might in that case come to the conclusion that the reduction of service was so substantial that he would reduce the rent by 75 per cent. I really question whether the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) does not see something a little bit ludicrous in giving to the rent review officers the opportunity of making that kind of determination, rather than a determination that such a service ought to be restored.

It’s a little specious it seems to me to say, “All right, let him reduce it.” He might even reduce the rent entirely. Let’s look at it; he could, if you are going to follow what has been said here, in which case of course he would be making a decision which was tantamount to restoring the service.

I wonder if we are really not splitting hairs when we say, “All right, give him the opportunity either to reduce the rents or to direct that on the failure to restore the service the rent would be reduced, for example, to zero.” It seems to me that the argument here is rather specious. I would say that there ought to be a provision for the restoration of a service in such circumstances.

I wonder if the member might not look at it from that point of view; whether we are not achieving, really, the same thing without saying so.

Mr. Mackenzie: Once again, I think there is some merit in this and I can’t really understand the minister’s position. I don’t think it is any ideological difference either and I can’t really understand the position of the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) on that. I would like to put one particular case, if I can, that certainly influences me, and that is that there is an awful lot of attempts to move some people with families out of some of the apartment buildings. Some people with young families in particular will move into a building because of a number of things, including the laundry facilities, washing and drying and what have you that are there. It is a very important part of their decision to move into that particular building when they have young children or when they have a family. They could discontinue those or stop those services and I think that is a substantial reduction as far as the tenants are concerned.

It may not be good enough to say: “Well, because of that we will argue that you should have a $10 a month reduction in rent.” Why they went there in the first place was that they needed it, especially when you look at some of the big apartment complexes that are a little bit isolated from the downtown core or some of the shopping centres. It seems to me that the rent review officer should be able to order the restoration of that kind rather than just saying they will give a rent reduction. It seems to me there is some great danger of using this particular method of moving people out of apartments, people with families, and that is one of the things that also surfaced very clearly during the hearings. I would ask the minister to take another look at it.

Mr. Sweeney: I share a concern with some of the former speakers that by putting this amendment in we may be doing more than we intend. It strikes me that if a particular service is provided when a person moves into an apartment building and for any number of reasons, be they good reasons or bad, that service is discontinued and the rent is reduced accordingly, then for the length of time of that lease and for as long as those people choose to stay in there, they are being compensated for it.

However, there are two factors that concern me if we force the landlord to restore the service instead of reducing the rent. The first one could be a very economic one -- the particular service might be excessively costly to restore.

Mr. Cassidy: What as an example?

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s say an indoor swimming pool where after a number of years there is a considerable amount of damage. It has to be all torn out and replaced and the cost could be so excessive that I am not sure whether it is economically viable to do it in terms of the building and in terms of the increased rent that might occur, and all of these kinds of things.

There is also a second point I think we should consider. I would like to make a distinction here between what I would call essential services dealing with the health and safety of the tenant and those additional services which are for his or her enjoyment. Some of these services change from time to time as our styles of living change and as our priorities change as to those things in our society which have greater advantage to us.

In this particular case, maybe we are talking again of such things as swimming pools. For a while, these were highly desirable. It got to a point after a while, however, that they weren’t used very much. I think we have to take into consideration that living styles will in fact change and yet if we put that in we may be encasing in perpetuity certain kinds of services for enjoyment that really are not necessary or practical or cover a broad enough segment of the tenant population to continue doing.

Mr. Cassidy: What is your example?

Mr. Sweeney: Again, let’s say we are talking about tennis courts in the backyard or a swimming pool or some kind of a roof-garden/playroom complex up on the roof of the building.

In terms of excess cost and in terms of services which maybe are no longer holding the same kind of priorities that they did before, I would not want to see this particular amendment put in.

Mr. McClellan: That is the Liberal position.

[5:30]

Mr. Norton: At the invitation of the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) perhaps I could have a moment to reply to her comments and explain the point I was really trying to make. I doubt that the extreme situation she has set out is ever likely to occur. However, if it does, I am sure it is going to provide considerable incentive to any landlord to provide these services and not to find himself before a rent review officer on any minor matter.

I think we must make a distinction between this piece of legislation, which is fundamentally intended to provide for the review of rents, and legislation which is designed to maintain certain standards of accommodation, largely now done through municipal bylaws, providing for such things as adequate lighting in underground garages -- I would hope this is so in the city of Toronto, although I am not familiar with Toronto’s legislation -- providing for certain standards of maintenance in the hallways and providing for things like light bulbs.

I don’t think those things are likely or ought to come before the rent review officer. Let’s not try to turn this legislation into an alternative means of enforcing housing standards and place such authority in the hands of someone like a rent review officer who may have no background in that area whatsoever. He may primarily, I suspect, have a background in something which is more akin to his responsibilities as a rental review officer, perhaps someone like --

Mrs. Campbell: A chartered accountant.

Mr. Norton: -- an accountant or something like that, yes. I don’t wish to disparage chartered accountants, but I suspect they are not likely as well equipped to enforce building standards as are building standards bylaw enforcement officers; nor are they as well equipped to determine matters involving the rights of individuals which might order them to perform a particular duty or a particular service as a judge on the bench of the Province of Ontario. That is basically the point I am trying to make.

Mrs. Campbell: A judge is no better qualified to deal with that.

Mr. Norton: I would like to point out to the hon. member for St. George that she ought not to pull the rug out from under me because it was only a couple of nights ago I praised her very highly in her former role as a judge in this province.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. McClellan’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Are there any further amendments or comments prior to section 11?

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another amendment on section 9.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that section 9 be renumbered section 9, subsection 1, and that section 9 be amended by adding the following thereto:

“(2) In addition to his other powers under the Act, the rent review officer may

“(a) initiate a hearing under this Act;

“(b) summon before him the books, records and any other information he deems relevant of any landlord;

“(c) conduct investigations as to the rental rate being charged for residential premises under his jurisdiction; and

“(d) recommend to the Attorney General the prosecution of persons suspected of contravention of this Act.”

Mr. Mackenzie: Simply, this is setting out, I think, more clearly the authority the rental review officer has. We’ve heard quite a bit about whether we can assist the rental review officers, what direction we give them. We think that they should be able to initiate a hearing under this Act. We feel rather strongly that this is needed if you’re going to give the bill some stature, some authority and the respect that’s needed to make it work.

If a rental review officer, for example, hears of a case where people are being intimidated, or feel they’ve got a just complaint but are afraid of voicing it -- and that’s the case many times with some of the older people or those who end up at the bottom of the economic scale -- he should have the authority to move in and take a look at the particular situation.

I think we’ve already more or less agreed that he should have the authority to bring before him any of the books or records that are needed to make a proper adjudication of the problem. I think part of his job should be to conduct an investigation into the residential rates that are being charged in the areas that he’s servicing, given some understanding of what he can expect. I think also he’s got to have the authority to recommend prosecutions if this Act is going to mean what we hope it means at this time.

I would ask you to consider these particular amendments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, I’m opposed to the amendment because I do not want to be creating another police officer or department of police. I read this over and I expected any minute to see somebody called “Rentals-man” leap out of the gallery with a cape and a tight-fitting suit, jump over high buildings and go charging around to save the world. This would turn the rent review officer from what we hope he will be -- and that is someone who is competent to review rents --

Mr. Givens: Maybe she. He or she.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Or she. He or she, you’re right.

Mrs. Campbell: A rentals banshee?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A rentals person, okay. A rentals person who is going to be able to sit and deal with questions involving the costs of operating buildings, the questions of tenants coming before them who feel that their rents should be adjusted downward and landlords who want them upward.

This isn’t a policeman; it isn’t someone who’s going out to try and prosecute people and investigating. He can initiate hearings to a degree under the Public Inquiries Act. He can summon people and records before him. But as I read this particular amendment, the rent review officer could be sitting in his or her office and suddenly say, “By golly, I think I’ll have a look at the books of the building that’s owned by that fellow, Ed Good, from Kitchener. I want to take a look at his books.”

Mr. Good: Try Cadillac Fairview.

Mrs. Campbell: In that case he should do.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And he draws these books in.

Mr. Worton: It all depends whether you’re buying.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The question of him summoning these books is there; he has the right to do so at the time that a hearing has been requested by either the landlord or the tenant. If it is relevant, then he should go ahead and do his job. But, boy, that creates something that I don’t think any of us envisioned we wanted to create when we talked about setting up a review process; we don’t need another level of policing in this area at all.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question?

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Chairman. I think this should be debated a bit longer. I’m unhappy with what the minister has got to say because of the experience with rent review --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ve been unhappy with you for four days now, so be my guest.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. That’s too bad.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, it’s mutual.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Some people said I wouldn’t come back, but they aren’t here and I am.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in BC the experience of the first couple of years --

Mr. Rhodes: A great experience in BC, yes.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m glad it gets to you in your heart.

Mr. Renwick: You don’t think they’re going to repeal that rent control, though.

Mr. Cassidy: Certainly not. But what they learned in the first couple of years of rent control was that a bill which simply set out the maximum permitted rent increase but did not provide for any kind of enforcement was ignored by somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the landlords of the province. There was a real loophole there. They tried to administer it using the minimum amount of personnel possible, and the BC rent authority had about two dozen people working for them.

Mr. Shore: And a new group of people coming in.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They had a nothing piece of legislation; and you know it.

Mr. Cassidy: But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that a landlord, despite the fines that are provided for in the Act, can simply ignore it and it’s up to the tenant to enforce it by taking the landlord in as this bill stands. The fact the landlord is trying to charge a tenant 15 per cent increases in rent and that they are illegal will stand, unless the tenant gets up the courage to say, “Hey, you shouldn’t be doing that. I want you to go into the rent review officer and I won’t pay unless you do.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Now who is insulting the tenants?

Mr. Cassidy: There are real problems here. It’s also been the experience, Mr. Chairman, that when tenants have sought to enforce the Landlord and Tenant Act by going to a justice of the peace in order to get a prosecution under that particular Act, they have often been turned down. So that if you also leave the prosecution of people who refuse to comply in the hands of tenants, you are again going to have the same situation.

What happens when a tenant comes in and says, “Hello, I’m Joe Tenant and I want you to start a prosecution of my landlord because he is violating these sections of the Act, which I happened to get a copy of.” And the justice of the peace says, “This place doesn’t deal with complaints from tenants”? And that is the kind of thing that has happened in the past, Mr. Minister. What we are saying is that the rent review officer should have these powers.

The ministry is going to provide regulations and directions for the rent review officers and you are going to put the economic resources at their disposal; that’s going to be the effective constraint on how many hearings they initiate and how often they go and look into landlord’s books. But to close them off from any such powers completely is nuts -- It is just crazy. We think that is a serious loophole in the Act which should be plugged up, and it should be plugged up by giving the rent review officers the powers which are proposed here.

If you don’t do that, then you are risking the same kind of thing that happened in BC in the first year or two of their Act, when not just a small number of people who didn’t happen to get information were without the protection of the Act, but a very substantial proportion of tenants were unprotected because the landlords chose to ignore the Act and the tenants didn’t know how to make it apply.

Mr. Norton: It may be nuts but it is certainly not so naive as the proposal that is being put forward at the present time as far as the amendment is concerned. Surely you don’t have to look at this very long to see that what in effect you are trying to do is to make the judge also the police officer; surely that is a conflict. If you place the onus upon the rent review officer to investigate and to determine when a prosecution as such ought to take place, or when a review ought to take place, surely he develops a vested interest.

You don’t want the man making the determination as to what is fair and equitable in the given case to be the same man who is charged with the responsibility to enforce the legislation. It’s tantamount to taking a detective from the Metropolitan Toronto police force and making him the judge in the case he is investigating. Now --

Mrs. Campbell: Or putting a judge on the police commission.

Mr. Norton: Yes, perhaps!

Mr. Good: That has happened.

Mr. Norton: Furthermore it seems to me you are asking the rent review officer to do an almost impossible task, and that is both to hear the matters that are brought before him and also to go out into the community and look into the books or investigate hearsay evidence of abuses that have perhaps been mentioned to him in passing.

It seems to me that if you are going to make him the judge and the sheriff, you are also going to have to give him a posse. If that’s the case then you surely are going to have to give him a team of investigators who are capable of doing this. You cannot expect the same man to do both. If you are going to have an investigation force, I suggest they ought not to be under the control of the man who ultimately is going to be making the determination as to what is equitable in a given case.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) points out that the Ombudsman has the power to initiate as well as the power to arbitrate on questions that come before him. The question the member for Kingston and the Islands should answer, it seems to me, is -- I don’t accept his argument, but if he accepts his argument -- who should carry out that function which he obviously does agree ought to be carried out by somebody? Should it be the police? Should it be a different group of people set up to ensure that the Act is complied with? Or should there simply be no enforcement mechanism at all?

[5:45]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask just one question. Does the Ombudsman arbitrate or does he mediate? I think there’s a difference.

Mr. Norton: The Ombudsman doesn’t have any judicial authority.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I think if nothing else the loyal opposition is being consistent in the attitudes it is applying toward this legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Really gets to you, doesn’t it?

Mr. Williams: The other day they were concerned over the fact that a landlord and a tenant could actually agree on a rent structure which might be something different from the eight per cent guideline which has been established and, therefore, there must have been a sense of intimidation by the landlord against the tenant. I think that type of attitude is prevailing in this situation and they seem to feel that if everything is all right, surely there must be something wrong behind the scenes and somebody is being intimidated.

Mr. Cassidy: Some of your best friends are landlords.

Mr. Williams: Here, built into this amendment, we have the desire to establish a situation whereby we have an officer who, if he hasn’t got enough work to look after, should set out on a witch hunt and find something wrong. As I say, the attitude and the thinking seem to be consistent and I don’t like the attitude or the consistency which is being applied.

The legislation, I think, is to deal fairly with legitimate grievances between a landlord and a tenant, and if one of the parties feels aggrieved, they can initiate the action.

Mr. Cassidy: If the tenants are too frightened to act, the rent review officer should step in.

Mr. Williams: The legislation supplies ample opportunity for that grievance to be aired publicly and fully. I think it’s totally inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of the legislation to have the rent review officers starting out initiating their own grievances and asking people to come in and aggrieve, perhaps because they haven’t got enough work to do of their own.

I’m sure they will have plenty of work on their hands. They certainly aren’t going to have time to start initiating proceedings and going out and asking for all the books and records of landlords to be made available at their sole discretion, to the point where the whole machinery of the legislation just falls apart because of the voluminous amount of work being heaped upon the rent review officers.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale indicated he had something to say.

Mr. Renwick: No, I was just expressing my frustration with the argument, Mr. Chairman. The merit of the amendment speaks for itself.

Mr. Mackenzie: Briefly, I don’t know whether or not I’ve been missing something here but not more than a few minutes ago the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) was up telling us that we should clearly be able to give some direction to the rent review officer because his job was going to be so onerous. We try to do that, and now he’s arguing the opposite side of the coin.

Mr. Ferrier: Trying to second guess all in the same breath.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s pretty nice to be on both sides of an issue very quickly and if it comes to naivete, as mentioned by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) I’m going to be naive by wanting to now that the bill we’re passing in this House empowers the rent review officers who are responsible for it to initiate actions. I don’t think that’s asking very much or being naive, either. I understood it was pretty well agreed -- I can’t see what is wrong with putting in there -- that they would have to demand the books. They’re not going to demand them from somebody they haven’t had a complaint about but if they suspect something is wrong, they’re going to take a look at it.

Certainly, if he’s not going to have some kind of book or information on the rates charged in the area he is servicing, he’s not going to be as effective, and who else would initiate the action in court? Maybe somebody could tell me or recommend to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that action be initiated. I can’t see what is naive about that. I think that gives the bill some legitimacy and some teeth. I think it’s important.

Mr. Warner: I’m quite intrigued by this debate from the other side of the House and perhaps the minister could clear up a few things by putting it into the framework of a case which he’s obviously aware of now and perhaps has been for some time. That is the case of No. 1 and No. 23 Oriole Rd. in Toronto. I guess it’s quite evident to the minister now that there was a pretty vicious kind of plot afoot to get rid of all of those tenants from the building. Perhaps the minister is aware that many of the people in the building left when they got the first notice from the owner. Those tenants indicated they were, in fact, intimidated. They were older people. Many of them said, for example, “I’m too old to fight this kind of thing. I don’t know what to do, and I don’t know who’s going to protect me.”

As I read it here, the amendment that’s proposed says to the tenant he has someone fighting for him, someone he will perhaps get to know. It’s a rent review officer whom he or she may come into contact with on occasion.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain, if we do not adopt the amendment that’s proposed here, who would be protecting those people, who would initiate the action that’s needed in the case of No. 1 and No. 23 Oriole Rd. to protect the tenants from the kind of vicious plot that’s going on against them at this time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t jump around and look for or think you’re going to find a vicious plot in everything, but I’ll tell you what is a vicious plot. A good vicious plot is the idea that you want to have everything structured and controlled and you want to have these rent review officers with their jackboots on marching up and down the halls, and making sure they’re prosecuting people and dragging them off to hearings; and you’re saying this is being done in order to protect the tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh no.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is being done to protect the tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: To keep him from being intimidated. Would you like to have the rent review officers also marching through the halls of the various apartment buildings and checking to see if the tenants are leaving the taps running when they shouldn’t be, and that they are leaving lights on when they shouldn’t, and that they’re not living up to the tenancy agreements they have?

Mr. Warner: You are evading the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Do you want that to be done by the rent review officer as well?

Mr. Cassidy: You sure are. You are having fantasies.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look, I’m not interested in producing a police bill. I want to produce a bill that will review rents.

Mr. Renwick: You didn’t like the bill in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not proper to do these things. It’s not necessary to have these rent review officers turned into a form of a police department. It just doesn’t make sense.

Mr. Renwick: That’s not the point and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is what you want. I know you want to control everything and have everybody jump into line and be marched away, according to what you say.

Mr. Cassidy: So who does the job?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is not what we want. Look at what you’re saying in this amendment, “initiate hearings under the Act” --

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- “summon before him the books, records -- ” I can just see them marching into the halls and saying --

Mr. Cassidy: It’s got that in right now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- “Bring me your books, thou vile creature you.”

Mr. Cassidy: You didn’t object when it was put into an earlier section.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: “Conduct investigations.” He marches around the municipality, going into buildings and checking on rents and everything else. He’s going to have enough to do by what we’re doing to this bill already. It may come as a shock to you, but I’m opposed to your amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak just very briefly, the minister has provoked me into --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I knew I would sooner or later.

Mr. Renwick: Yes you have. You’re quite right on one aspect and one aspect only. We’re not concerned about the landlords and the tenants and how that problem’s going to operate. We’re concerned about a Tory government that didn’t want this bill in the first place, have been dragged in screaming throughout the whole course of it to present the bill and are determined --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a red herring.

Mr. Renwick: -- to control tightly the administration of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You haven’t spoken yet. Don’t just sit in your corner and interject.

Mr. Renwick: You just listen.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am being interrupted by the member for somewhere or other and --

Mr. Warner: Just sit down.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’re interrupting me.

Mr. Renwick: For the short period of time that you’re here, our concern is that the administration of this bill is tightly in the hands of the Tory bureaucracy and they will not enforce the bill. That’s our concern.

What we were trying to say is that the rent review officers have a little bit of the flexibility that everybody wants, so that they can look into matters and they can even go to the Attorney General and say, “We think, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there is likely to be an offence. Will you do something about it?”

We consider that’s the way in which, if the government had any real interest in enforcing and protecting the tenants and coming up with a fair result, you would accept an amendment along these lines. We always leave it to you to redraft it in the intent of what we want. You accused my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, of taking a narrow-minded view about the statute. You are taking a narrow-minded view about the statute which destroys your right to criticize him, because you have insisted in all of the regulations that you’ll control it, that the rent review officer can only do what you tell him to do and that the rent review officer will have no power. Even where the decline in the quality of the tenancy is so great that you can’t equate it to dollars, you even were reluctant to accept the amendment by my colleague, the member for Bellwoods, that would recognize that there comes a point in time in the deterioration of a building for accommodation where you can’t recompense the tenant in dollars for the loss of the accommodation and the amenities that go with it.

Until you understand what this flexibility is, we will doubt the good faith of this government to be any more interested in rent control than they were last June and July when we were discussing the city of Toronto bill. The reason this bill is here is because of us, and we’re not going to listen to your claptrap about what we want to do in terms of structuring this society. We are here for one purpose: to protect the tenants in a situation where you were forced to recognize that the rents had got out of equation with the accommodation and the services which were being provided. Until that is corrected, we are going to doubt the bona fides of the government’s intention with respect to this bill.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t I have an opportunity to retaliate to that claptrap that just came out of there, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Renwick: I thought I had spoken through to 6 o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ve heard claptrap in my life, but --

Mr. Warner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Ferrier: You’re getting kind of touchy over there.

Mr. Warner: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I fully realize that the minister is not compelled to answer questions, but I asked a direct question and I am wondering if he is going to answer it now or perhaps after the dinner hour.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t intend to answer the question, no.

Mr. Cassidy: No, you’re just bulling your way through this one because you know you have the support of the Liberals.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the very honest and forthright statement we just heard from the member for Riverdale. It is the first time, I think, that an official spokesman for his party has made it very clear that their primary consideration was with only one side of this piece of legislation, while perhaps the rest of us in this House have some concern about the fairness of it.

Mr. Cassidy: Where were you when the bill was brought in?

Mr. Warner: This bill is to protect tenants.

Interjections.

Mr. Norton: May I reiterate my concern that if anyone on the other side of this House is concerned about civil rights and has had any experience with civil rights, then surely you must understand my concern about trying to place the investigation, the enforcement and the judicial aspects of this legislation all in the hands of one officer. Surely you must understand that. There is great danger involved in doing that, because you develop a person with a vested interest in seeing a particular result.

Mr. Cassidy: You are very earnest.

Mr. Norton: If you feel that it must be enforced, then please separate that function from the function of the rent review officer.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s fine if you can put up an alternative for enforcing it. If you want more bureaucracy, that’s fine.

Mr. Norton: If you feel it is going to be necessary there be somebody with investigative powers, then spell that out, please, but keep it separate.

Mr. Cassidy: You spell it out! We have.

Mr. Norton: And to draw any analogy --

Mr. Cassidy: if you want more red tape, then you propose it. It’s always the Tories who create bureaucracy.

Mr. Norton: May I also add this comment to the hon. member for Riverdale? To draw any analogy between this officer and the Ombudsman is incredible. The Ombudsman’s function is entirely different; not only that, but his recommendations --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has one minute.

Mr. Norton: The recommendations of the Ombudsman do not have the authority of an order, such as is found in this legislation; he makes recommendations, and that is quite a different matter.

Mr. Renwick: But he can initiate on his own.

Mr. Norton: If you are suggesting that someone who has the ultimate authority to make an order that affects an individual in this society ought also to be the same individual who does the investigation, then I seriously question your understanding of the dangers that are involved and the threat to fundamental human rights that would be involved in that.

Mr. Cassidy: But who enforces the Act? That’s the question.

Mr. Norton: It is enforced --

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.